



'*\';^A. o«^.S^^^% .//i-^^V o«' 







'••• 








'^d' 




ft ^ ♦ ' 







/ 4,^'^^^ 




V^^'V"^ ^^oj^^^^y \;?^y % 











;i» • 







• 'bv* 






•"oV* 



s*' .♦ 






> v.<^* * 















'-«•. ♦ 


















i*^ '^^ 










^ « 









♦ 4J 











\n 



/ 





Photo by Marceau 




^^>^ 



■^. 



DEFENSELESS 
AMERICA 



r 



BY 



HUDSON MAXIM 




*' The quich-firing gun is the greatest 
life-saving instrument ever invented.''^ 

Page 83. 



HEARST'S INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY CO. 

NEW YORK 






,f\^\ 



Copyright, 191B, by 
Hxabst's Intbbnational Libbart Co., Iiva 



Ail rights reserved, including that of translation into the 
fortign knguages, including the Scandintmian 



23 iS<6 



FOREWORD 



THIS BOOK IS PRESENTED 

WITH THE 

COMPLIMENTS OF THE AUTHOR 

To a Few Selected Leaders of American Thought 
and Shapers of Public Opinion 



Dear Reader :' 

I send you this book in the hope that if not al- 
ready convinced, you will be convinced by it of the 
defenseless state of this country — convinced that 
our danger is as great as our weakness. I hope 
that you may be moved to use your influence that 
this country may, by adequate preparation 
against war, safeguard the property, honor and 
lives of its people and the sanctity of the Amer- 
ican home from violation by a foreign foe. 

If you are already convinced of our great need 
then the reading of this book may still strengthen 
your conviction and stimulate your e:fforts in the 
cause of national defense. 



FOREWORD 

After you have read the book, kindly lend it to 
your friends, that they also may read it. 

Defenseless America was published a year ago 
at two dollars per copy. Several editions of the 
book have already been printed and' sold. 

Soon after the publication of the work I pre- 
sented ten thousand copies, with my compliments, 
to students graduating in American universities. 
This has given many persons the impression that 
Defenseless America is a book for free distribu- 
tion. 

To correct such an impression, let me say most 
emphatically that this book is not free, except to 
a few persons whom I have selected, and to whom 
I have sent it free at my own personal expense, 
for the good of the cause of national defense. 

The book has exerted so marked an influence 
in rousing the people of this country to their 
needs for defense against the red hell of war, that 
the publishers, through patriotic duty, have 
placed the good it is doing above all considera- 
tions of profit to themselves, and have supplied 
me copies of this edition of the work absolutely at 
cost. 

The publishers have also put an edition of the 
book on sale, of which this copy is a specimen, at 
only fifty cents a copy. In order to enable them 
to do this, I have cut out all royalties on sales 
which they may make. 



FOREWORD 

This edition of the book may be bought of or 
ordered through any book store at fifty cents a 
copy, or from the publishers, Hearst's Inter- 
national Library Company, 119^ West 40th Street, 
New York, N. Y., who will send single copies of 
the book to any address on receipt of sixty cents, 
or they will send ten copies of the book, in a single 
package, to any address on receipt of ^ve dol- 
lars — fifty cents a copy. 

Copies of the regular library edition, printed on 
superior paper and bound in extra cloth, gold 
stamping, may be obtained fro-m booksellers or 
direct from the publishers at two dollars a copy. 
Many of the readers of this book have already 
seen that wonderful motion picture play, *'The 
Battle Cry of Peace,'' founded upon it. 

Commodore J. Stuart Blackton, President of 
the Vitagraph Company of America, who wrote 
the scenario of *^The Battle Cry of Peace", has 
this to say about Defenseless America : — 

**To the fearless patriotism of Hudson 
Maxim and the plain, practical, straightfor- 
ward truths in his book, * Defenseless Amer- 
ica,' I owe the inspiration and impetus which 
caused me to conceive and write the scenario 
of ^The Battle Cry of Peace.' 

**The object of both book and picture is to 
arouse in the heart of every American citizen 
a sense of his strict accountability to his 
government in time of need, and to bring to 



L 



FOREWORD 

the notice of the greatest number of people 
in the shortest possible time the fact that 
there is a way to insure that peace for which 
we all so earnestly pray/' 

Commodore Blackton, being a staunch patriot 
and a man with phenomenal vision and breadth of 
understanding, and being one of the largest pro- 
ducers of motion pictures in the world, saw at 
once, as soon as he read Defenseless America, 
that the best way to impress the American people ' 
with the message of the book, as he had himself 
been impressed by reading it, was to visualize 
that message in a great motion picture. Then the 
people would be able to see, with their own eyes, 
those terrible things happening in our country 
and in our very homes, which are happening 
abroad and which are surely going to happen to 
us if we do not prepare, and immediately and 
adequately prepare to save the country. 

Faithfully yours, 

HUDSON MAXIM. * 



MAXIM PARK, 
Landing P. O., 
NEW JERSEY, 
1916 



PREFACE 

THE main object of this book is to present 
a phalanx of facts upon the subject of the 
defenseless condition of this country, and 
to show what must be done, and done quickly, in 
order to avert the most dire calamity that can fall 
upon a people — that of merciless invasion by a 
foreign foe, with the horrors of which no pesti- 
lence can be compared. 

We should bring a lesser calamity upon our- 
selves by abolishing our quarantine system against 
the importation of deadly disease and inviting 
a visitation like the great London Plague, or by 
letting in the Black Death to sweep our country 
as it swept Europe in the Middle Ages, than by 
neglecting our quarantine against war, as we are 
neglecting it, thereby inviting the pestilence of 
invasion. 

Self-preservation is the first law of Nature, and 
this law applies to nations exactly as it applies 
to individuals. Our American Republic cannot 
survive unless it obeys the law of survival, which 
all individuals must obey, which all nations must 
obey, and which all other nations are obeying. 
No individual, and no nation, has ever disobeyed 

[v] 



PREFACE 

that law for long and lived ; and it is too big a task 
for the United States of America. 

It is the aim of this work to discover truth to 
the reader, unvarnished and unembellished, and, 
at the same time, as far as possible, to avoid per- 
sonalities. Wherever practicable, philosophic 
generalizations have been tied down to actu- 
alities, based upon experiential knowledge and 
innate common-sense of the eternal fitness of 
things. 

The strong appeal of Lord Roberts for the 
British nation to prepare for the Armageddon 
that is now on, which he knew was coming, did 
not awaken England, but served rather to rouse 
Germany. 

Admiral Mahan pleaded long with his country 
for an adequate navy. All the Great Powers of the 
world except America were stimulated by his logic 
to strengthen their navies. The beautiful, imagi- 
native, logical language of General Homer Lea, 
on Americans military weakness, in his ** Valor 
of Ignorance ' ' and * * The Day of the Saxon, ' ' has 
caused many a gun to be made, many a battalion 
of troops to be enlisted, and many a warship to 
be built — in foreign countries. 

The eloquent words of wisdom of Lord Eoberts, 
Admiral Mahan, Homer Lea, and all real friends 
of peace and advocates of the only way of main- 
taining peace — by being prepared against war — 
have fallen on a deaf America. I am well aware 

[vi] 



PREFACE 

of the fact that nothing I can say will rouse the 
people of my country to the reality and magni- 
tude of their danger, and to a true appreciation 
of the imperative necessity for immediate prepa- 
ration against war. 

Possibly this book may lessen a little the effect 
of the pernicious propagandism of the pacifists — 
may somewhat help Congressional appropriations 
for defense — may place a few more men and a 
few more guns on the firing-line, and thereby save 
the lives of a few of our people — may save a few 
homes from the torch — may lessen the area of 
devastation — may, by adding a little power to our 
resistance, help to get slightly better terms from 
the conquerors for our liberation. 

Pacifism has ringed the nose of the American 
people and is leading them, blind and unknowing, 
to the slaughter. War is inevitable. It matters 
not that, if this country could be roused, it might 
be saved. When it is impossible to vitalize the 
impulse necessary to the accomplishment of a 
thing, that thing is impossible. So, I say, war is 
inevitable and imminent. 

The American people could not now be roused 
sufficiently to avert the impending calamity even 
by a call that would rift the sky and shake down 
the stars from heaven! 

Fate has decreed that our pride shall be hum- 
bled, and that we shall be bowed to the dirt. We 
must first put on sackcloth, ashed in the embers 

[vii] 



PREFACE 

of onr bnrniiig homes. Perhaps, when we build 
anew on the fire-blackened desolation, our mood 
may be receptive of the knowledge that we must 
shield our homes with blood and brawn and 
iron. 

Hudson Maxim. 

Maxim Park, 

Landing P. 0., 
New Jersey. 

March, 1915. 



I viii ] 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTBB PAOK 

Preface . . . . -. ■.- . v 

Introduction. Our Great Obsession xiii 

I Dangerous Preachments ... 1 

II Can Law be Substituted for War? . 22 

III Our Inconsistent Monroe Doctrine . 56 ^ 

IV Modern Methods and Machinery of 

War ^'^ 

V The Needs of Our Army . . . 113 ' 
(With Letter from General Leon- 
ard Wood) 

VI The Needs of Our Navy ., .. . 141 

VTI Language of the Big Guns . . . 181 

Vm Aerial Warfare . . . . . 203 

IX Our Armaments not a Burden . . 222 /' 

X Ego-Fanatic Good Intentions and 
Their Eelation to National De- 
fense 235 

XI A Dangerous Criminal Class! . . 247 
Xn The Good and Evil of Peace and of 

War 265 

Conclusion. What Shall the End 

Be! 306 

Index ......... 309 



ILLUSTRATIONS 

Portrait of Author Frontispiece 



FACING 
PAGB 



The Vast Territory that Our Inflated Monroe Doc- 
trine Obligates Us to Defend .... 60 

The Heart of America 76 

Kelative Numerical Strength of Field Artillery . 104 

Portrait of General Leonard Wood, U. S. A. . 114 

Number of Officers and Enlisted Men of U. S. 

Regular Army 118 

Strength of Regular Armies on Peace Footing . 124 

Portrait of Admiral Austin M. Knight, U. S. N. 150 

Strategic Spheres of Vital Importance in the 

Pacific 160 

Battleship Strength of the Nations . . .168 

How New York Could Be Bombarded from a Posi- 
tion off Rockaway Beach Beyond the Range 

of Our Forts 188 

Opposing Fleets in Action . between 197 and 198 

Some Annual United States Expenditures . . 226 

Enormous Resources of the Warring Nations . 232 

Casualties of Peace and War Compared . . 296 



■v 



INTEODUCTION 
OUR GREAT OBSESSION 

SUCCESS in every human pursuit depends 
upon ability to discern the truth and to 
utilize it. Facts, though they may be stern, 
are our best friends, and we should always wel- 
come them with an open mind. 

Napoleon said that with good news there is 
never any hurry, but with bad news not a moment 
is to be lost. Consequently, those who discover 
to us certain facts of serious concern are our 
friends, even though it may be bad news. It is 
every man's duty, not only to himself, but also to 
those dear to him, to know the truth about any- 
thing which may menace his and their welfare, 
in order that he and they may become awakened 
to the danger and prepare for it accordingly. 

Those who deceive us by warning us of danger 
when there is no danger may not do us any harm ;' 
in fact, they may even do us good by cultivating 
our alertness and awareness. The hare may 
jump at a thousand false alarms to every one of 
actual danger; but it is the false alarms that 
have given him the alertness to save himself when 
real danger comes. On the other hand, those who 

[ xiii ] 



INTRODUCTION 

convince us that there is no danger when there 
is great danger are the worst of enemies; they 
expose us, naked of defense, to the armed and 
armored enemy. 

Among the great deceivers with whom the hu- 
man race has to contend is the confidence man, 
for he plays upon the fears, vanity, and credulity 
of his victim with the skill of a Kubelik upon the 
violin. He enlists his victim with him, and they 
work together to the same end. No man is greatly 
deceived by another except through his own co- 
operation. Every one has his pet egoistic illu- 
sion always under the spotlight of self -view; to 
him, his own importance is a veritable obsession. 

A nation is only a compound of individuals, and 
what is true of an individual also holds true of 
any aggregation of individuals. 

We, the people of the United States of America, 
are at this moment, and have been for many years, 
afflicted with a dominating egoistic obsession con- 
cerning our greatness, our importance, and our 
power, while we correspondingly underrate the 
greatness, the importance, and the power of other 
nations and races. Our accomplishments have in- 
deed been marvelous, and we have not neglected 
to award them all the marveling that is their due. 

There is no denying the fact that in many 
competitive pursuits requiring intellectual acute- 
ness for the greatening of material welfare we 
have outstripped the rest of the world. But the 

[xiv] 



INTRODUCTION 

rest of the world has been busy, too, and though 
we may possibly deserve more credit for our ac- 
complishments in the aggregate than any other 
people, still, others have far outdone us in many 
important respects. 

Our hitherto isolated and unassailable geo- 
graphical position has enabled us to utilize our 
unequaled resources to become the greatest indus- 
trial and the wealthiest people in the world. 

We have not been obliged to concern ourselves 
very much thus far with measures for national 
security, and having at home all the land we 
needed, we have acquired the habit of looking 
upon national armaments in the light of frills,' 
which we must maintain merely for national re- 
spectability. Many of us look upon our Navy 
as dress-parade paraphernalia, to be worn on 
gala occasions. 

Our response to the advocacy of a sufficient 
navy, of coast fortifications, a«id of a standing 
army adequate to our needs, has been that we" 
have no use for either army or navy, and that 
coast fortifications would be a useless expense. 

Our enormous wealth and inexhaustible re- 
sources have been and still are pointed out as 
reasons why we require no armaments, although, 
as a matter of fact, they are the strongest pos- 
sible reasons for armaments of a magnitude pro- 
portionate to that wealth and those resources. 

In America, we pride ourselves upon our so- 

[XV] 



INTRODUCTION 

called free institutions, blindly believing tbat they 
are free, and that, therefore, every man being an 
aristocrat, we, by consequence, have no aristoc- 
racy, entirely oblivious to the fact that we have 
merely substituted the esteem of wealth, and the 
power and the privilege which it represents, for 
the esteem of family worth and family name, and 
the power and the privilege which they represent. 

Isolation and wealth beget vanity and arro- 
gance; and vanity, resting upon the laurels of 
past accomplishments, rapidly fosters decadence 
and weakness ; so that the very pride of strength 
and virility begets weakness and effeminacy. 

It has been said that usually there are but three 
generations between shirt-sleeves and shirt- 
sleeves. The old man trades upon the name made 
in the days of his younger strength, and the son, 
seldom possessing the strength of the father, 
trades on the father's name, while the third gen- 
eration generally gets back to shirt-sleeves again. 
Although this statement is not a general truth, it 
has truth enough to excuse it. 

The main reason why luxury and opulence lead 
to degeneracy, weakness, and effeminacy, is that 
those who live on Easy Street, being relieved of 
the intense strife necessary to gain a livelihood 
and to climb to positions of opulence and power, 
suffer from weakness and decay, and finally find 
their way down to shirt-sleeves, at the foot of the 
economic and social ladder, either to be sub- 

[xvi] 



INTRODUCTION 

merged in hoboism, or to make the climb of old 
progenitors over again. 

What is true of individuals and families in this 
respect holds true also of nations, only it takes 
a little longer time, starting from shirt-sleeves, to 
get back to shirt-sleeves again. 

We Americans were taught by the promoters 
of the American Eevolution — in short, by the fa- 
thers of our country — that all men are created 
equal in respect to privilege, and that no class 
distinction and no class privilege were worthy of 
honor unless earned. By consequence, the sym- 
bol and the badge of our class distinction became* 
the dollar. 

Taught to despise aristocracy, we immediately 
created for ourselves a new aristocracy in the 
shape of a plutocracy. This aristocracy of wealth 
was fast becoming as tyrannical and unbearable 
and as much a menace to the freedom of the peo- 
ple as the old aristocracy which it had replaced. 
The old aristocracy had been established by the 
right of the sword ; the new aristocracy had been 
established by the purchasing power of the dol- 
lar, and the people learned that combinations of 
wealth were a compelling power as great as the 
combination of armies, and that a government 
dominated by the dollar might become as intoler- 
able as any form of absolutism. 

Then there came another American revolution, 
led by the labor unions, which proved that it is 

[ xvii ] 



INTRODUCTION 

only necessary for the people to organize, in order 
to conquer with the short-sword of the ballot as 
effectually as with the sword of steel. 

Unhappily, just as intolerance and avarice have 
always led conquerors to be overgrasping and 
tyrannical, so have intolerance and avarice made 
prosecutions under the Sherman Law veritable 
persecutions. Now that the common people have 
found their power, nothing under heaven can halt 
them, or prevent them from abusing that power, 
except a higher education of the common people 
and their leaders, compelling them to understand 
the great truth that the people of a nation must 
co-operate with a patriotism that shall emulate 
the spirit of the hive of bees so admirably inter- 
preted by Maeterlinck. 

Nevertheless, we must remember that, while we 
may with advantage imitate the bee in this re- 
spect, the bee does not progress. There has been 
no enlightenment in bee-life for a hundred thou- 
sand years, for the very reason that the bees 
are dominated by that beautiful spirit of the 
hive. 

We owe our ability to progress and to become 
more and more highly intelligent and enlightened, 
to the existence of that instability and heterogene- 
ity which stimulate and develop us by causing us 
to strive for stability and homogeneity. 

Life is a series of reactions between the indi- 
vidual and environing stimuli. For this reason, 

[ xviii ] 



INTRODUCTION 

stern and exacting stimuli are required to de- 
velop a man to the full. In all the ages during 
which the race has been developing there have 
existed formative influences of the sternest and 
most exacting kind; so that, just as our ears are 
constituted to hear only a certain character of 
sounds, and sounds of a limited pitch, duration, 
and loudness, and are deaf to all other sounds, 
so are we constituted to react only to certain 
environing stimuli, and to react with each stimulus 
in a certain definite measure, and only in a cer- 
tain definite measure. It is impossible for us to 
react supremely, or to be developed supremely, 
by mediocre stimuli, but we must have supreme 
stimuli, and in order to get those stimuli, there 
must be a prompting to activity that demands of 
a man every ounce of his strength; and every- 
thing that is dear to him must be staked to bring 
out and develop all the latent, larger energies 
that are in him. 

Nothing that can be said and done by all the 
friends of national defense will make this coun- 
try take adequate measures for its defense. Noth- 
ing but a disastrous war will supply the necessary 
stimulus. In all the history of the world, this 
truth has been made manifest — that no nation 
can be made adequately to prepare against war, 
no matter what the menace may be, without either 
suffering actual defeat, or being so embroiled in 
war as to realize the necessity for preparedness. 

[xix] 



INTRODUCTION 

This country must first be whipped in order to 
prepare sufficiently to prevent being whipped. 
Therefore, our business at the present time is to 
pick our conquerors. I choose England. I would 
much rather see the red-coat in the streets of New 
York than the spiked helmet. I would much 
rather see the genial face of the British Tommy 
Atkins than the stern mystery of the Japanese 
face. 

If England does not give us a good, timely ' 
whipping, we are going to be whipped by Ger- 
many or Japan, and the humiliation will be more 
than is really needed to stimulate us for adequate 
preparation. 

When the present war is over, the precipitation 
of a war with England may not depend on what 
England will choose to do, but it may depend on 
what we shall choose to do. We have been a lamb 
rampant for a long time in a jungle alive with 
lions, and we have owed our security to the fact 
that the lions have been watching one another, 
and have not dared to avert their eyes long enough 
to devour us. If we did not have a grandiose 
sense of our importance and power, we should not 
need a whipping in order to prepare against war, 
but so long as we believe that we can beat all 
creation without any preparation, we are going 
to act just as though it were true, and England, 
although she may be friendly, may be forced, by 
our inconsiderate bluff and arrogance, to declare 

[XX] 



INTRODUCTION 

war on us. Much better England than any other 
country. England now has no territorial aspira- 
tions that would make her want to annex some of 
our land. She would be satisfied with a good big 
indemnity, which we could well afford to pay for 
the benefit we should gain from the war. If Eng- 
land will merely come over seas, and whip us, and 
tax us for the trouble, and thereby lead us to pre- 
pare adequately to defend ourselves against less 
friendly nations, she will do us the greatest pos- 
sible good. 

We are living and working not alone for our- 
selves, but also for those who are our own, and f oi* 
all others insomuch as their interests and their 
welfare are in common with our own. 

Our welfare is part and parcel of the aggregate 
welfare of all those for whom we are working, and 
our welfare and their welfare are not only a con- 
dition of the present, but are also a condition of 
the future. The welfare of our children and our 
children's children, and of those whose interests 
will be in common with theirs, is part and parcel 
of our own present welfare. This is the true 
philosophy by which we who are sane and con- 
scientious are guided. Upon such philosophy are 
based all economics and all prudence. 

The false philosophy of the selfish and the sen- 
sual, the spendthrift and the debauchee, is the 
philosophy of such as they whose acts of omission 
and commission brought on the French Revolu- 

[xxi] 



INTRODUCTION 

tion, and who said, *^Apres nous le deluge'^; but 
such should not be our philosophy. 

Therefore, if now there be a calamity in the 
making, which we are able to foresee must surely 
descend upon the heads of our children, even if it 
does not come soon enough to fall upon our own 
heads, it is a thing that should awaken our con- 
cern and stimulate our inquiry, and lead us to 
seek ways and means for averting it. 

It is a fact, which I absolutely know as cer- 
tainly as anything can be known in human affairs, 
that we, and all of those who are near and dear 
to us, are sitting today on a powder magazine 
with the train lighted, and it is only a question 
of the slowness, or quickness, of the fuse when the 
time shall arrive for the explosion. 

The laws that govern human events are as 
mathematically accurate and as immutable as the 
laws that govern the motions of the heavenly 
bodies; the laws that govern human reactions — 
the reactions between men and men, communities 
and communities, nations and nations — are as im- 
mutable and are governed as exactly by the laws 
of cause and effect as are chemical reactions. 
Nothing can happen without a cause, and there 
can be no cause that does not make something 
happen. Every event is the child of its parents — 
cause and effect. 

Now let us look at the parentage of the cause 
and effect whose progeny are soon to bring upon 

[ xxii ] 



INTRODUCTION 

I 

US the great red peril of war, and, finding us un- 
prepared, will treat us as Germany has treated 
Belgium. We are rich — our country from one 
end to the other possesses a vast wealth of en- 
ticements to the invasion of a foreign foe — and we 
are defenseless. These conditions are the parents 
of vast impending calamities. 

Europe, today, is involved in the greatest war in 
the history of mankind, and — in spite of all the 
saving grace of our so-called modern civilization, 
in spite of all the mercifulness of the Christian 
religion, in spite of all the charitable kindness of 
the Eed Cross — the sum of brutality, savagery, 
and misery of this war is certainly not much less 
than it has been at any other time in the history 
of a striving world, every page of which has 
been written with blood. 

We have arrived at a time when we must decide 
whether or not our safety can be better secured 
and peace maintained with armaments or without 
armaments, • 



[ xxiii ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

CHAPTER I 
DANGEEOUS PREACHMENTS 

"There will be no war in the future, for it has become im- 
possible now that it is clear that war means suicide." 

/. S. Block, "The Future of War," 1899. 

" What shall we say of the Great War of Europe ever threaten- 
ing, ever impending, and which never comes? We shall say that 
it will never come. Humanly speaking, it is impossible." 

Dr, David Starr Jordan, " War and Waste," 1913. 

THEY who are loudest in their vociferations 
about the calamities that the warring na- 
tions of Europe have brought upon them- 
selves are those peace-palavering persons who 
have been telling us all along, during the past 
twenty-five years, that human nature had im- 
proved so much lately, and the spirit of interna- 
tional brotherhood had become so dominant, that 
the fighting spirit was nearly dead in the souls of 
men. 

The peace praters have assured us from time 
to time that the last great war of the world had 
been fought; they have told us that no great na- 
tions would dare to go to war any more, because 

[1] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

war between any of the Great Powers would now 
mean bankruptcy and national suicide ; they have 
assured us that all international differences 
would hereafter be settled by jurisprudential pro- 
cedure, and that law would be substituted for 
war. 

About fifteen years ago, a M. de Bloch 
** proved " in his book, entitled '* The Future of 
War. Is War Now Possible? " that war had be- 
come so deadly and destructive, and, above all, so 
expensive, as to be impossible. So impressed was 
the Czar of Eussia with de Bloch 's arguments that 
he called a conference of the nations to consider 
disarmament. Since that time a thousand dif- 
ferent persons have, in a thousand different ways, 
* * proved " to us that war on a large scale was not 
only impossible, but also absolutely unthinkable. 
Droll, isn't it, that the nations keep right on fight- 
ing? We are consoled, however, by the insistence 
of the peace prophets that this war is truly the 
last great war. We are assured that this war 
will be the death of militarism, and then the lamb 
can safely cuddle up to the lion. Consequently, 
we have been told that, war on a large scale being 
now impossible, the United States needs no army 
and no navy, and that it would be folly to waste the 
taxpayers' money on such useless things. 

Many believe that this country should set the 
other nations of the world a great moral example 
by pulling the teeth of our dogs of war, making 

[2] 



DANGEROUS PREACHMENTS 

them lambs, and inviting the lions to lie down 
with them, unheedful of the lesson of all ages 
that when the lion does lie down with the lamb, the 
lamb is always inside the lion. 

Furthermore, we have been assured that the 
mere possession of armaments leads a nation to 
wage war, because being able to fight makes one 
want to fight ; and that, obviously, the best way to 
avoid a fight is to be unable to fight. 

I quote the following from Theodore Roosevelt's 
book, ** America and the World War '': — 

''These peace people have persistently and 
resolutely hlinlced facts. One of the peace con- 
gresses sat in New York at the very time that the 
feeling in California about the Japanese ques- 
tion gravely threatened the good relations between 
ourselves and the great empire of Japan. The 
only thing which at the moment could practically 
he done for the cause of peace was to secure some 
proper solution of the question at issue between 
ourselves and Japan, But this represented real 
effort, real thought. The peace congress paid 
not the slightest serious attention to the matter 
and instead devoted itself to listening to speeches 
which favored the abolition of the United States 
navy and even in one case the prohibiting the use 
of tin soldiers in nurseries because of the mili- 
taristic effect on the minds of the little boys and 
girls who played with them! " 

[3] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

When the prophet Isaiah told the Jews that 
there were big troubles brewing for them in the 
East, he spoke to unhearing ears, because un- 
willing ears. There were in those days, as 
in our day, the false prophets of peace who 
said that Isaiah was wrong; that there was no 
cause for worry about the indignation of Jehovah ; 
that even at the worst His wrath could be ap- 
peased at any time, as necessity might arise, by 
a few burnt offerings and sacrificial mumblings. 
Their assurances were more pleasing than the 
warnings of Isaiah, so the Jews listened to the 
false prophets instead of to Isaiah, and they paid 
the penalty in Babylonian bondage. 

The Isaiahs of true prophecy have long warned 
the people of this country that there is big trou- 
ble brewing for us in the East and in the Far 
East, and that we need armaments and men 
trained to arms to safeguard us against that 
trouble. These Isaiahs have told us that we can- 
not safeguard ourselves by any sacrifices made 
upon the altar of international brotherhood, or 
forefend ourselves against the great red peril of 
war by a few mumblings written down in arbitra- 
tion treaties ; but that we must have guns and men 
behind the guns. The Isaiahs who have been 
telling us these things are our true peace- 
advocates. 

Those self-styled peace-men who are telling us 
that the best way to avoid war is to be unable to 

[4] 



DANGEROUS PREACHMENTS 

defend ourselves are not peace-men, but war- 
breeders. Though they emulate the dove in their 
cooing, they are far from being doves of peace. 
They ought to be styled dubs of peace. Their in- 
tentions may be good, yet they are enemies of 
peace, and betrayers of their country. Those who 
prevent the building of coast fortifications, which 
are our modern city gates, by advising against 
them, betray their country as actually as those 
who opened the gates of Eome to the hordes of 
Alaric. 

Those who are trying to defeat our Congres- 
sional appropriations for a larger navy, for an 
adequate army, and for sufiScient coast fortifica- 
tions, although they may mean well, are as truly 
enemies of their country as if they should, in war, 
contribute to the armament and fighting force of 
an enemy, for the effect in both cases is identical. 

Again I quote from Mr. Eoosevelt: 

'^We object to the actions of those who 'do most 
talking about the necessity of peace because we 
think they are really a menace to the 'just and 
honorable peace which alone this country will in 
the long run support. We object to their actions 
because we believe they represent a course of con- 
duct which may at any time produce a war in 
which we arid not they would labor arid suffer, 

'^In such a war the prime fact to be remembered 
is that the men really responsible for it would not 

[5] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

be those who would pay the penalty. The ultra- 
pacifists are rarely men who go to battle. Their 
fault or their folly would be expiated by the blood 
of countless thousands of plain and decent Ameri- 
can citizens of the stamp of those. North and 
South alike, who in the Civil War laid down all 
they had, including life itself, in battling for the 
right as it was given to them to see the right," 

But the false prophets of peace have assured 
us all along that there is no danger whatever of 
war between the United States and any other 
country. They tell us further that our arma- 
ments are a menace to other nations; that they 
evidence suspicion of other nations, and thereby 
place us under suspicion. According to such 
philosophy, the college man who becomes an ath- 
lete is a trouble-breeder, for the reason that the 
mere possession of muscle makes him a menace 
to other men. 

Now, if we are in any danger of war, we ought 
to do the right thing to secure the safety of our 
country, of our homes and our families, and all 
things that are dear to us. 

If it be true that the possession of armaments 
is an inducement for those who have them to use 
them, and if it be true that armaments fret the 
fighting spirit of other nations as a red rag frets 
a bull, and thereby lead to war, then, surely, 
we do not need more armaments, but less. In- 

[6] 



DANGEROUS PREACHMENTS 

stead of arming ourselves any more, we should 
disarm until we are defenseless enough to be per- 
fectly safe. On the other hand, if there be any 
likelihood that this country may be invaded by 
a foreign foe, we should be prepared to meet the 
invaders in the right way, and with the right 
spirit. 

If it be the proper way to go and meet them as 
the inhabitants of Jerusalem went out to meet 
Alexander, with the keys to our gates, and with 
.presents and sacrificial offerings, then we should 
adopt that way of preparing to pave their path 
with flowers and make them drunk on grape-juice 
and the milk of human kindness. 

Dr. David Starr Jordan believes in disarma- 
ment. He further believes that armor-plate, guns, 
battleships, and ammunition should not be made 
by private manufacturers, but that, on the con- 
trary, these things should be made exclusively 
by the government, for he is of the opinion that 
manufacturers of war materials foment disorder 
and promote war in order to bring themselves 
more business. 

Long association with the manufacturers of 
war materials, especially of explosive materials, 
has enabled me to know whereof I speak, and I 
do know that such a belief is the utterest nonsense. 
The manufacturers of war materials with whom I 
am acquainted are among the staunchest of peace 
men, and they would no more be guilty of promot- 

[7] 



^DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

ing war to bring themselves business than a rep- 
utable surgeon would be likely to string a cord 
across the street to trip up pedestrians and break 
their limbs in order to bring himself business. 

In the treatment of human physical ailments, 
we should deem it folly to confound remedy with 
disease, and to hold the physician responsible for 
pestilence. No one would think of looking upon 
our" science of sanitation and our quarantine sys- 
tenii as breeders and harbingers of pestilence, and 
no one would think that our laws against crime 
and our system of police protection tend to foster 
crime. Yet such is the attitude of many well- 
intentioned but overzealous persons with respect 
to our naval and military system and armaments. 
They consider them breeders and harbingers of 
war. 

An army and navy are merely a mighty quar- 
antine system against the pestilence of war. We 
must fortify our shores, police our seas with 
armor-clads, and be prepared to patrol the skies 
with aeroplanes around our entire national horizon 
when the need may come. 

But it is urged that the people are over- 
burdened with the cost of maintaining armies and 
navies. Assuming that the burden is great, was 
it ever less? Was it ever so small as it is now, 
compared with the numbers and wealth of the peo- 
ple ? Again, cannot we well afford to bear a con- 
siderable burden of armaments as an insurance 

[8] 



DANGEROUS PREACHMENTS 

against war, and as a further insurance that if 
war comes, it will be far less deadly than it would 
be without them? 

If Dr. Jordan were better acquainted with the 
manufacture of war materials, he would know that 
they can be made more cheaply, with equal ex- 
cellence, by private concerns, than by the gov- 
ernment. Furthermore, he would know that big 
manufacturers of war materials are obliged to 
employ a very large force of skilled labor, and 
that this labor has to be supplied employment 
when there are no government orders for war ma- 
terials. For example, the manufacture of armor- 
plate by the United States Steel Corporation is 
only a small part of that company's business. 
The manufacture of guns and armor-plate by the 
Bethlehem Steel Company does not keep it con- 
stantly occupied, and it has to furnish other em- 
ployment for its men when government orders are 
not forthcoming. Consequently, it is obliged to 
make things besides armor-plate and guns and 
war materials. 

The du Pont explosives companies do a far 
larger business in high explosives and smokeless 
powders for commercial purposes than they do 
for government purposes. 

Therefore, if the manufacture of war materials 
were to be confined entirely to government shops, 
then the government would truly have to promote 
war to keep its employees busy. At any rate, 

[9] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

the goveriunent would have to maintain a large 
labor force, making war materials alone, for the 
government could not devote itself to the manu- 
facture of automobiles, chairs, cloth, artificial 
leather, dynamite, sporting powder, and the like, 
for commercial purposes, as private manufactur- 
ers do. 

There is another reason why the private manu- 
facturers of war materials should be encouraged! 
by the government, and it is that, in the event of 
war, the government would find the large capital, 
and plants of the wealthy Steel Trust, the Bethle- 
hem Steel Company, and the du Fonts available 
for the purpose of national defense in addition 
to the government's own resources. This is very 
important. 

The battle of Lake Erie was quite as much a 
du Pont victory as a Perry victory; for the re- 
sources, energy, and generalship of the du Pont 
Powder Company overcame inconceivable difficul- 
ties, carted the powder from Wilmington, Dela- 
ware, all the way overland to Lake Erie, and got 
it there on time. 

It is unfortunate that a person's confidence in 
his knowledge of a subject is often directly pro- 
portionate to his ignorance of the subject. It is a 
psychological truth that ignorance may be taught, 
just like anything else, and a person may become 
very erudite in things which are not true, just 
as he may in things which are true. 

[10] 



DANGEROUS PREACHMENTS 

Dr. Jordan, in recent public utterances, has 
said that he would rather the United States should 
lose its Pacific possessions than that we should 
go to war; and he has remarked that now, while 
the world is drunk with war, is a bad time to lay- 
in more liquor. This is an ingenious metaphor, 
and well designed to trip the intelligence of the 
unwary. As a matter of fact, when the world is 
drunk with war, and rapine, murder, and plunder 
are rife, it is exactly the time to lay in more am- 
munition. 

Had Dr. Jordan been in the position of Captain 
John Smith in the Virginia colony, when the 
Indians were on the war-path, he would have ad- 
vised the settlers to disarm and destroy their 
stockades and forts. The Indians at that time 
went on the war-path and got drunk for war be- 
cause they had a grievance. 

When the present war is over and international 
commerce is re-established, we are destined to 
give some other nation a grievance, for the 
same reason that we then gave those Indians a 
grievance, and that other nation will go on the 
war-path, just as those Indians did, and that other 
nation when it takes up the torch and the sword 
and gets a taste of blood, is going to be as sav- 
age as the men engaged in the present European 
conflict. 

There are two kinds of true prophets : The one 
kind, like Isaiah, who is directly inspired of God ; 

[11] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

and the other kind, who judges the future by the 
lessons of the past. The scientist is a true 
prophet; but he is not one of the inspired kind. 
The way he does his predicting is the way of the 
astronomer, who uses a base line the width of the 
earth's orbit in order to triangulate the parallax 
of a star. So the scientific prophet triangulates 
the parallax of future events from a base line com- 
passing all human history. 

There is no one lesson which history teaches 
us more plainly than that the possession of wealth 
by a defenseless nation is a standing casus belli 
to other nations, and that always there has been 
the nation standing ready to attack and plunder 
any other nation when there was likely to be 
sufficient profit in the enterprise to pay for the 
trouble. Never have we seen any treaty stand 
for long in the way of such practices between na- 
tions. Treaties have always been mere scraps of 
paper, which, like the cobweb, ensnare the weak, 
while they let the strong break through. 

It is strange that those who recommend that 
this country try the experiment of disarmament 
to secure peace by setting other nations a great 
moral example, should not have read history to see 
whether or not the experiment were a new one; 
and whether or not, judging by past experiments, 
it were likely to prove a success or a failure. 
Should these men look back through history, they 
would find that ancient Egypt tried the experi- 

[12] 



DANGEROUS PREACHMENTS 

ment, and went down under the sword and torch 
of fierce invaders from over the desert. They 
would learn that the Greeks tried the experiment 
and found it a failure. They would learn that 
India and China have bled through the ages be- 
cause of their peaceableness. They would learn 
that the fall of Carthage was due not so much 
to the superior military power of Rome, or to the 
reiterations of Cato that Carthage must be de- 
stroyed, as it was to the peace talk of Hanno, 
which withheld the necessary support of Hannibal 
in Italy. They would learn that when old Rome 
lost her vigor and neglected her defenses, she was 
hewn to pieces by fierce barbarians. They would 
learn that the fathers of our own country, after 
the Revolution, tried the same old experiment, 
with the result that the city of Washington was 
captured and burned by the British in the war of 
1812. They would learn, furthermore^ that all 
prophets who have said that the nations will war 
no more, have been false prophets. 

Four years before the Russo-Japanese war, I 
wrote an article for a New York magazine, in 
which I prophesied that war, and predicted 
Japanese victory. I predicted also at the same 
time that there would be in the near future a 
general European conflict. It has come. 

The following quotations from that article may 
be of interest: 

[13] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

''By far the greatest prohahility of imminent 
war lies in the Far East, between Russia and 
Japan, Japan feels the sting of the Russian whip 
that made her drop Port Arthur and withdraw 
from the continent of Asia, thus relinquishing the 
chief advantages gained by her victory over 
China, The whole sum paid Japan by China as 
a war indemnity has been expended on her 
navy and on armaments. In the East, in both 
naval and military strength, she is superior to 
Russia^ 

'^Whether or not we shall soon have war will 
depend on whether Japan will quietly wait until 
Russia shall have finished the Trans-Siberian 
Railway, secured Korea, intrenched and fortified 
herself along the Asiatic coast, and built a fleet of 
sufficient strength entirely to overawe the little 
empire. It is doubtful if Japan will wait for the 
time when Russia shall be ready to strangle her. 
She may strike and drive Russia from Korea and 
secure, as well, a fair share of Chinese territory; 
or, what amounts to the same thing, a lease of a 
portion of the Celestial Empire. She will there- 
after be better able to protect her interests in 
Chinese trade and opportunities. Should she 
strike soon, and she and Russia be left to them- 
selves, Japan ought to win, for she is close at hand 
and will be able to bring to bear upon the points 
of collision a much greater force than Russia. She 

[14] 



DANGEROUS PREACHMENTS 

will also he able to act with correspondingly 
greater celerity. 



''If we would essay to predict future events, 
we must draw the lines of divination in the direc- 
tion that ive see the nations grow, and these lines 
must he parallel with those of great commercial 
interests — he parallel with those of national self- 
interests. We then have hut one more question 
to consider, on which to base a priori judgment. 
It is the question of might — of national resources 
and hlood and iron, 

''What was true on a small scale, with primi- 
tive tribes of men, is also true on a large scale, 
with the great world poivers of today. In early 
times, like the ebb and flow of the tides of the 
sea, conquest and re-conquest, victory and defeat, 
followed one another. Then destruction suc- 
ceeded growth and grotvth destruction, 

"As the great banyan tree constantly en- 
croaches upon the territory of surrounding flora, 
to overtop and blight and kill all upon which its 
shadow falls, so do and so must nations in their 
growth encroach upon their neighbors, 

"In recent times, the tremendous strides made 
in the arts and sciences, and the birth of neiv in- 
'dustries, and the enormous growth of all, have 
provided room and occupation for the earth's 
great dominating peoples. Vast land areas have^ 

[15] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

been reclaimed, and boundless resources de- 
veloped. Thus far the overflow has been upon 
the lands of the tameless American Indian — of the 
lazy African — of the docile Hindoo, and the sim- 
ple savage of the southern seas. Now it is China's 
turn, and the wolves of greed, in the guise of 
trade, are already howling at her gates, 

*^ Growth is proceeding with constantly accel- 
erating rapidity, and soon the overflow must be 
on lands already filled to overflowing — not then 
with simple savages. It will then be Greek to 
Greek, over fortresses that frown along the whole 
frontier. Then there will be a clash. It is com- 
ing. Where the storm will first break, and when, 
is a question. That a great conflict will come, and 
at no distant date, is certain,' ' — ^^The Home 
Magazine," July, 1900, 

At the first annual banquet of the Aeronautical 
Society four years ago, I predicted exactly the use 
of the aeroplane in war that it has had since that 
time. President Taft was one of the speakers, 
and his subject was his pet peace and arbitration 
treaties. He said that there were not likely to be 
the requisite wars for testing out the aeroplane, 
as predicted. He said that there was going to be 
a shortage of wars. 

Since that time, we have had the revolution 
in China, the Italian war with Tripoli, the Balkan 
wars, a continuous revolutionary performance in 

[16] 



DANGEROUS PREACHMENTS 

Mexico, and finally, we have the present great 
European War. Not much of a shortage in wars, 
truly ! 

The following quotation from Dr. David Starr 
Jordan's ^* War and Waste " is an excellent illus- 
tration of the prophetic wisdom that is keeping 
the United States of America unprepared against 
war: 

''What shall we say of the Great War of Eu- 
rope, ever threatening, ever impending, and which 
never comes? We shall sag that it will never 
come. Humanly speaking, it is impossible, 

''Not in the physical sense, of course, for with 
weak, reckless, and godless men nothing evil is 
impossible. It may he, of course, that some half- 
crazed archduke or some harassed minister of 
state shall half-knowing give the signal for Eu- 
rope's conflagration. In fact, the agreed signal 
has been given more than once within the last few 
months. The tinder is well dried and laid in such 
a way as to make the worst of this catastrophe. 
All Europe cherishes is ready for the burning. 
Yet Europe recoils and tvill recoil even in the 
dread stress of spoil-division of the Balkan 
war. ... 

"But accident aside, the Triple Entente lined 
up against the Triple Alliance, we shall expect no 



war. 



The hankers will not find the money for such a 

[17] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

fight, the industries of Europe will not maintain 
it, the statesmen cannot. So whatever the bluster 
or apparent provocation, it comes to the same 
thing at the end. There wUl he no general war 
until the masters direct the fighters to fight. The 
masters have much to gain, but vastly more to 
lose, and their signal will not be given/' 

Eight years ago, when the great Peace Con- 
ference was held at Carnegie Hall, New York, 
to discuss the limitation and abolishment of arma- 
ments, the most notable of the pacifists repre- 
sented were invited by the Economic Club of Bos- 
ton to attend a banquet in that city for the free 
hot-airing of their views. 

There was much sophistical palaver about de- 
stroying our old battle-fla'gs and leveling our sol- 
diers' monuments and all landmarks and remind- 
ers of war. William T. Stead, however, was more 
rational, and he was annoyed by the silly imprac- 
ticable nonsense of some of the dubs of peace. 
Stead's better sense was evidenced by the fact 
that the following winter he recommended to the 
British Parliament that England build two battle- 
ships to every one built by Germany. 

Invited to speak in defense of armaments, I 
held that we must arm for peace, and not disarm 
for it. I began my remarks by telling them this 
story : 

In a small paragraph in an obscure place upon 

[18] 



DANGEROUS PREACHMENTS 

the back page of a leading Boston paper, I once 
saw the announcement that Herbert Spencer, the 
great philosopher, was very ill, and not expected 
to live. On the front page of the same paper, 
under bold headlines, was a three-column article 
on the physical condition of John L. Sullivan. 

John L. Sullivan was a fighter, while Herbert 
Spencer was only a philosopher; hence the differ- 
ence in public interest. 

John L. Sullivan, in his time, standing on the 
corner, would deplete the hall and break up any 
peace meeting in the world, and block the street 
with massed humanity for a square, jostling for 
a sight of him. 

Several years ago, a reverend gentleman by 
the name of Charles Edward Jefferson elicited 
much applause by his public utterances on the 
blessings and advantages of non-resistance and 
meekness mild. He made it as clear as the day 
dawn of June, to the unreasoning, that it is all 
a mistake to build guns, warships, and coast forti- 
fications ; that our war colleges are not institutions 
of actual learning at all, but are institutions for 
teaching ignorance. He declared that militarism 
is squandering the taxpayers' money by the hun- 
dreds of millions, and all because the advocates 
of militarism and the friends of militarism are 
-perverse and wilfully wot not what they do, 
though wisdom radiant as the rainbow stares them 
in the face; and because our military men, who 

[19] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

have been educated at government expense and 
who, we have thought, were devoting their lives 
to the country's service in studying its needs and 
fighting its battles, are desirous merely of promo- 
tion and of widening the sphere of their activities. 

According to Dr. Jefferson, these men are not 
what we have supposed them — a bulwark against 
trouble, but are trouble-makers, ignorant of the 
primary essential of their profession, namely 
militant meekness ; and instead of being guardians 
of peace and an assurance against war, they are 
actual war-breeders. He seems to think that there 
is a real conspiracy to squander the taxpayers' 
money in the interest of a military clique. 

A man may be wrong, and yet be honest. Preju- 
dice is honest. Dr. Jefferson is doubtless honest, 
and if it should be that he is right, then his doc- 
trine is practicable. K he is right, our military 
men are wrong. If our army and navy officers, 
who have been educated at the public expense and 
in the school of experience, do not know and 
understand better this country's needs in the re- 
spects and particulars for which they have been 
educated than does this good ecclesiastic, then it 
is proved that the church is a better military 
school than Annapolis or West Point. Theology, 
and not military science, should hereafter be 
taught in those institutions. The military parade 
should be called in from the campus and be 
replaced by knee drill in the chapel, and here- 

[20] 



DANGEROUS PREACHMENTS 

after, at Annapolis, at West Point, and along the 
firing-line, the command should be Shoulder 
Psalms, instead of Shoulder Arms. 

Let us lay down our arms and spike our guns, 
disband the military parade from the campus, as 
the sentimentalists desire us to do, and we shall 
very soon, with Kubla Khan, hear ** ancestral 
voices [George Washington's among them] 
prophesying war. ' ' 



[21] 



CHAPTER n 
CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOE WAR? 

1AM a peace advocate — that is to say, I am 
one who advocates an active campaign in the 
cause of peace, employing the best means and 
instruments for the accomplishment of practical 
results. 

Unfortunately, a wide difference of opinion ex- 
ists in the ranks of those who style themselves 
peace advocates as to how the war against war 
can best be fought. That difference of opinion is 
as to whether we should arm for the fray, or dis- 
arm for it. Shall we go into the fight with sword 
and buckler, and with armor on, prepared to re- 
turn blow with stronger blow ; or shall we go into 
the fight with bared breasts, and, when we receive 
a blow upon one cheek turn the other cheek also, 
and let both our eyes be blackened and our nose 
be skinned in order to shame our antagonist, by 
giving him an object lesson of the horrors of 
war? 

Ernst Haeckel has said there is nothing con- 
stant but change. He might have said also that 
there is a no more consistent thing in its con- 
stancy than human inconsistency. 

[22] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WAR? 

That other great philosopher, Herbert Spencer, 
declared that, as he grew older, the more and 
more he realized the extent to which mankind is 
governed by irrationality. 

Josh Billings said, **It is not so much the igno- 
rance of men that makes them ridiculous as what 
they know that is not so/' 

The complex problems of ethics, eugenics, 
economics, and human dynamics, which enter into 
all questions and problems of peace and war, are 
like so many Chinese puzzles to the ordinary 
mind. 

There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of minds 
— the ratiocinative and the irrational; in other 
words, the logical and the illogical. The logical 
mind proceeds scientifically from sure premises 
to just conclusions, taking no direction and travel- 
ing no faster and no farther in any direction than 
warranted and justified by ascertained fact. The 
irrational or illogical mind, on the contrary, is 
unable to discriminate between belief and knowl- 
edge, between facts and fancies. Consequently, 
this type of mind proceeds from guess to con- 
clusion, with the result that final judgment is 
necessarily distorted, warped, and swerved from 
truth just in proportion as the basic guess is in- 
correct or false. 

There is a no more momentous problem before 
the world today than that of international juris- 
prudence, especially with respect to the mainte- 

[23] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

nance of peace where practicable, and the control 
of wars, when wars are inevitable or necessary; 
and there is no subject of such moment more 
fruitful of irrationalism. 

In the light of practical common-sense, there 
is nothing funnier in the writings of Mark Twain 
than the inconsistent prating of our peace soph- 
ists. It is as though they let not their right-hand 
brain know what their left-hand brain is doing. 
They are usually brimmed and primed with sac- 
rificial sentimentality and over-soul. Their deli- 
catessen natures shrink from contact with the 
stern, man-making realities of life. They are the 
disciples of soft stuff. The mush and moonshine 
of maudlin sentiment alism are their element. 
They possess no powers of discrimination between 
the actual and the erroneous. The guise of fact 
is no recommendation to them unless it fits into 
their scheme. An error is far more welcome if 
it comes in a garmenture that conforms with their 
ideals. They put their union label on what we re- 
ceive by the grace of God, but they fail to recog- 
nize and appreciate that they cannot comprehend 
the infinite; that what to them seems disorder 
and confusion in the world may be the most per- 
fect order in the eye of God. They cannot under- 
stand how infinite wisdom, infinite justice, and in- 
finite mercy should have created a warring world ; 
consequently, they have set themselves the task 
of repairing the faults of creation and of recreat- 

[24] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WARf 

ing the world to suit their own ideas as to what 
infinite wisdom and mercy ought to be. 

"When one of these peace sophists gets into a 
fight, however, he promptly prays to God to help 
him whip the other fellow. The pacific sentimen- 
talist is usually a most arrant coward. In time 
of war, the cowardly sentimental pacifists are 
the loudest in appeals to Almighty God to fight on 
their side and to lead their army to victory — that 
same army which in time of peace they have done 
everything in their power to disarm and dis- 
band. 

Kecently, when speaking at a church, I was 
asked the question, *'How long is it going to take 
to make might right?" I asked my interrogator 
this question : ^ ^ If , at the creation, you had been 
consulted and your advice asked as to whether or 
not a world should be made in which all life should 
feed on other life, and half of the animal creation 
should be made prey for the other half; whether 
everything should be made tooth and nail, claw 
and scale, hunter and hunted, terror and blood, 
strife and war; whether or not the cat should 
train for the hunt by torturing the little bird — 
how would you have replied to God ! ' ' My querist 
did not answer me, but went home to think it 
over. 

I do not purpose to make any apology for In- 
finite Wisdom. My pacifist friends are doing that 
constantly. It is my humble opinion that the 

[25] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

Creator did the best He could for us, and that we 
ought to be thankful and grateful. 
I believe with Pope, that: 



<t 



Spite of pride, in erring reason's spite, 
One truth is clear-^whatever is, is right." 

I realize that the most perfect order is confusion 
to the mind that is not constituted to compre- 
hend it. 

I know that the macrocosmic mechanism 
moves with mathematical exactitude, and that we, 
in comparison, are mighty only in our arrogance ; 
that, in fact, we are but microscopic specks in 
the drift of worlds. 

Nature seems to care little for individuals, but 
very much for races and species ; little indeed for 
a person, very much for a people. 

The terms, right and wrong, good and bad, are 
entirely relative. Eight for an individual may 
not be so for a large aggregation of individuals. 
The welfare of a nation or a people may not be 
the welfare of the world, and God has His eye 
on the world. 

The wrong are wealc, the right are strong. 
This mean the two terms right and wrong; 
And truth sought out to any length, 
Finds all wrong weakness, all right strength. 

[26] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WAR? 

Formative Strife 

Primeval man found himself thrust into an en- 
vironment where all animal life fed on other life, 
and half the animal creation was prey for the 
other half. He was one of the hunted. Yet, with 
less strength but greater cunning, he was destined 
to master all. Man's supremacy has been de- 
veloped by warfare of wit, craft, and cunning, 
versus brute force. 

Primitive man found himself *'up a tree'' in 
both the actual and the metaphoric sense. His 
teeth and claws were no match for those of the 
leopard and the sabre-toothed tiger. He had no 
recourse but flight until stern necessity taught 
him to wield a club. 

Then he climbed down from his abode in trees, 
and began the conquest of the earth. The club 
made man a traveler. His forays with that 
weapon taught him to walk and fight upon his 
hind legs, and gave him his erect carriage. But 
he had to travel a long and thorny pathway in- 
deed, armed only with a club, before he invented 
the stone hatchet and spear of sharpened flint or 
bone. It was a far-flung span across the gulf of 
time from the tree-home to the cave in the hill, 
his new abiding-place. 

The bow and arrow, which enabled him to kill 
at long range, were his next weapon, and were the 
greatest invention of all time. 

[27] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

The protection of the heart with the left arm 
and shield, mth the right arm free to wield the 
sword or hurl the javelin, made man right-handed. 

Armed with the bow and arrow, spear and 
shield, man was equipped still better for travel; 
and ever since travel has been widening out the 
sky and broadening man's mental horizon. 

The fighting spirit widened the acquaintance 
of different peoples, and the terrible menace of 
some savage common enemy forced different 
tribes to unite and build up nations. Union 
against danger is the best instructor of self-gov- 
ernment, and the best guarantee of internal good 
behavior. 

It is generally recognized that man is a product 
of his environment; that he is in body and mind 
the sum of his own and ancestral experiences ; that 
he is omnivorous; that he drinks water and 
breathes air ; and yet, many persons fail to recog- 
nize the inevitable concomitant conclusion that he 
is also of necessity a warring animal, and that the 
formative influences of the fierce struggle for ex- 
istence have made him what he is. His life is a 
series of reactions to environing stimuli; and he 
is actuated and shaped by those stimuli, and just 
as those stimuli have been necessary to his growth, 
so they are still necessary to his continued growth, 
and even to his very existence. In other words, 
the formative influences that have made and sus- 
tained man are still necessary to his maintenaj^ce. 

[28] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WAR? 

The character of the strife may be changed, and is 
already largely changed, from war to business. 
But the intensity of the struggle cannot be al- 
leviated one whit, because it is impossible, in the 
nature of things, to maintain man's strength of 
character in any other way. He could live a little 
longer without strife than without food or air or 
water, but the absence of strife would be as fatal 
to him in the end as would be the absence of food, 
air, or water. 

The struggle for existence has always been a 
business proposition with man, and business to- 
day is a struggle for existence as intense and mer- 
ciless as the struggle in war. 

In olden times, piracy and war for plunder were 
the principal business of mankind. Today, busi- 
ness is a warfare, and though it may be law- 
abiding, still the weak go down under it and suf- 
fer and die under it as surely as they did in old- 
time wars. The relation of strength to weakness 
remains unchanged, and the reward for strength 
and the penalty for weakness are as great as they 
ever were. 

There now exists, as always, the same inten- 
sity of incentive of all classes to strive for some- 
thing more and something better than they have. 
Though the condition of all classes has improved, 
the struggle of individual with individual is as 
great, the strife of class with class is as intense 
as ever. 

[29] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

The ownership of one's earnings, with freedom 
to apply and enjoy them, was the greatest prize 
ever offered to stimulate the working genius of 
this world, and the results during the past hun- 
dred and fifty years have been phenomenal. 

The world has progressed more within that 
time in those things which tend to complete liv- 
ing than it had previously progressed in all the 
ages that had dragged their slow length along 
since the world thawed out of the ancient ice. 

But human agencies, like all agencies in nature, 
are essentially rhythmical. In order to accumu- 
late the necessary energy and enthusiasm to go 
far enough in the right direction, we inevitably 
go too far, and, when the pendulum returns, it 
swings to the other extreme. 

It is important to realize the great truth that 
freedom ends when it aims beyond the spirit 
which strives for the greatest good to the greatest 
number. 

According to Herbert Spencer, the criminal 
classes are composed of those who have been 
pushed out of the race in the struggle for exist- 
ence under modem conditions. They were normal 
components of society in the past, when all men 
were soldiers and all soldiers were bandits, and 
the principal business of mankind was piracy and 
war for plunder. 

There being no longer the ever-present oppor- 
tunity to join in an inter-tribal or an international 

[30] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WAR? 

war for robbery, the soldier-bandit now makes 
war upon society. 

All of the Huns and Vandals in our midst are 
today armed with the short-sword of the ballot. 
How important it is then that they should be 
taught to know and to understand that in the 
use of this weapon their work should be formative 
and not def ormative ; that it should be constructive 
and not destructive ! 



Substitution op Law for War 

The poet's words, ^^The parliament of man, the 
federation of the world,'' have become a very 
familiar quotation in recent years. Anciently all 
wisdom was taught in poesy, and we have never 
yet quite freed ourselves from the age-long habi- 
tude of receiving as unimpeachable wisdom what- 
ever may be said in verse. 

To the common mind, a statement in didactic 
verse has the proselyting power of Holy Writ. 
Now, this line of Tennyson, *^The parliament of 
man, the federation of the world," points us 
toward a Utopia, without hope of actual attain- 
ment. 

There is at the present time a growing good 
intention to put an end to wars by international 
conciliation and arbitration; in short, to substi- 
tute law for war. We must, however, keep 
strongly in mind the interdependence of law and 

[31] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 



I 



force, and the consequent interdependence of in- 
ternational law and armaments. Conciliation must 
not be confounded with arbitration, and persua- 
sion must not be confounded with law. 

Law has been aptly designated ** codified cus- 
tom." Actually, law is an attempt to construct; 
experience into prophecy. We are able to judges 
of the sufficiency of new laws only by the suffi- 
ciency of laws in past practice. 

The error is very common, to confound as hav- 
ing the same meaning terms of quite opposite; 
meanings — for example, it is a very common er- 
ror to confound society with government, and 
civilization with enlightenment. Society is an 
order of things by virtue of which we are able 
to co-operate with one another and to enjoy mu- 
tuality of possessions which gives them their only 
value ; while government is an order of things for ' 
the purpose of protecting society. 

The world has arrived at great enlightenment, , 
and has attained some degree of civilization., 
Self-interest is becoming more and more altruistic, , 
and altruism is becoming more and more profit- 
able. We are not so barbarous as we used to be, , 
but we still slaughter one another to adjust inter- 
national differences. This cannot be esteemed 
civil procedure. Enlightenment may be very un- 
civil, and civility may not be enlightenment. 

The great problem yet remains of uniting under 

[32] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WAR? 

practical laws the nations of the earth into a 
family of nations. 

This is not a work for dreamers or sentimental- 
ists; but is purely a business proposition, which 
can be effected only to the extent that the best in- 
terests of all the contracting parties are thereby 
secured. 

When will arbitration be able to realize the 
Utopian dreams of the pacifists ? General Homer 
Lea answers the question once for all in the fol- 
lowing expressive terms: 

*^Only when arbitration is able to unravel the 
tangled skein of crime and hypocrisy among in- 
dividuals can it be extended to communities and 
nations. Thence will International Arbitration 
come of its own accord as the natural outgrowth 
of national evolution through the individual. As 
nations are only man in the aggregate, they are 
the aggregate of his crimes and deception and 
depravity, and so long as these constitute the 
basis of individual impulse, so long will they con- 
trol the acts of nations. 

''When, therefore, the merchant arbitrates with 
the customer he is about to cheat; ivhen trusts 
arbitrate ivith the people they are about to fleece; 
when the bulls and bears arbitrate with the lambs 
they are about to shear; when the thief arbitrates 
with the man he is about to rob, or the murderer 
with his victim, and so on throughout the category 

[33] 



DEFENSELESS 'AMERICA 

of crime, then will communities he able to dis- 
pense with laws, and international thievery and 
deception, shearing and murder, resort to arbitra- 
tion/' 

The men who control our city and state politics 
and make and enforce our city and state laws all 
over the country are not always honest, but, on 
the contrary, they are often notoriously corrupt, 
notwithstanding the fact that they have much 
stronger incentives to be honest here than they 
would have in dealing with foreign nations and 
strange peoples. What, therefore, are we to ex- 
pect of their integrity and their honesty in the 
settlement of international disputes and in the 
enactment and execution of international laws? 

What an enormous field for graft it will be 
when some weaker nation tries to get its rights at 
the coming international tribunal ! 

Our laws are now notoriously inadequate with 
respect to theft, burglary, highway robbery, and 
municipal-government graft. The amount of 
money loss to the people of this country through 
the failure of our laws to suppress these iniquities 
is enough to support a standing army of half a 
million men, build four battleships a year, and 
place us on such a defensive footing as absolutely 
to preclude all danger of war with any foreign 
power. 

Has human nature improved so much lately that 

[34] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WAR? 

special privilege will no longer result from special 
power? Has the human race progressed so much 
lately that privilege and oppression will not fol- 
low power; wealth and luxury follow privilege; 
and degeneracy and disorganization follow wealth 
and luxury? 

The race has certainly not so altered that men 
do not grow old and die; and nations, like men, 
have their youth, their middle age, their decrepi- 
tude and death. 

Periodically, some religio-pathological sect will 
announce the conclusion of an understanding with 
the Great Reaper, whereby, through certain in- 
cantations or breathing exercises, death may be 
indefinitely postponed; but they, like other mor- 
tals, keep on dying. 

Those good men who are the leaders in the 
present peace movement must realize the fact 
that the carrying out of their project will de- 
volve, not upon them — not upon the philanthropist, 
the sentimentalist, and the humanitarian — ^but 
upon the politician. 

The actual procedure of the Hague congresses 
enables us to forecast exactly this result. The 
judicial bench of that court was a bargain-counter, 
over which political advantage was bartered for 
political advantage. It was no real love of peace 
that dominated those tribunals : only the powerful 
nations spoke or were heard. No protection was 
suggested for the weaker nations, who, presum- 

[35] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

ably, would be most benefited by international 
arbitration. They were quite out of the running. 
International arbitration will ultimately become 
a political machine. Nothing can prevent it, and 
there is no reason to believe that those politicians 
who will have control of the international arbi- 
tration machine will be any more honest than 
other machine politicians. 

All Law Must Bb Backed by Force 

It is a popular belief that when the paradoxical 
conciliatory legal persuasion in the form of arbi- 
tration goes into effect, we shall no longer re- 
quire any armaments, but may forge our swords 
into plow-shares and spears into pruning-hooks, 
disband our armies, and return the soldiers to 
the shops and farms. 

We are prone to forget that law is as much a 
representative of the requisite power behind it for 
its enforcement as a paper dollar is a representa- 
tive of the requisite gold available for its redemp- 
tion. A well-known orator came very near becom- 
ing President through a popular misconception as 
to the interdependence of gold and paper money, 
and he failed to get the Presidency because of a 
public awakening to the error. 

We are prone to forget, furthermore, that it is 
the respect for power behind law that makes pos- 
sible its enforcement. Any law to adjust interna- 

[36] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WAR? 

tional differences by arbitration will simply be an 
embodiment of the collective wisdom of allied 
Powers in the exercise of force, and a force that 
is representative of their banded armies and 
navies. 

International law is static military force. War 
is the dynamic form of the same force. I believe 
in international arbitration for all it is worth. It 
is a good thing to push along. It will unquestion- 
ably lessen the frequency of wars, but many wars 
are sure to come in spite of it, and because of it. 

Non-Justiciable Diffeeences 

There are ills of national bodies politic that can 
be cured only by the sword. Insurmountable dif- 
ferences between various nations and races of 
men are always sure to arise, as impossible to 
arbitrate as the differences between the herbivora 
and the carnivora. 

The existence of the carnivora depends upon the 
sacrifice of the herbivora. Their interests are, 
from their very nature, antagonistic, and their 
differences are, by consequence, insurmountable, 
and not justiciable. The harmony of nature de- 
pends upon inharmony between the meat-eaters 
and the vegetable-eaters, and the harmony of 
modern progress has likewise depended in large 
measure upon formative inharmony between 
peoples. 

[37] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

Such radical differences and such concomitant 
radical diversity of interests exist among the vari- 
ous races of men that the task of harmonizing 
their interests, aims, and activities will be about 
as great as would be that of bleaching their skins 
to a uniform color. 

It is a practical impossibility to enact inter- 
national laws that wiU make the welfare of each 
nation the concern of all, with no subordination 
of any one to the welfare of another. Will arbitra- 
tion be able to place all peoples upon a plane of 
equality? Will it be able to secure to all, even 
the meanest, equal rights to enjoyment of prop- 
erty, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- 
ness? 

Will arbitration be able to make the Anglo- 
Saxon, the Teuton, the African, and the Oriental 
meet one another on common ground, and share 
and share alike, live and let live, when their in- 
terests come into collision? 

If arbitration cannot do this — if arbitration 
does not do this — ^if it does not treat all with strict 
impartiality, then those who are ill-treated are 
going to rebel, and wars will still come. 

Between nations no sentimental consideration 
exists or is possible, sufficiently effectual to exert 
more than the merest microscopic influence as a 
deterrent of war. Self-interest always has been, 
and always will be, the deciding factor in the 
settlement of international disputes. War un- 

[38] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WAm 

cloaks international hypocrisy, and the people are 
seen in their true character. 

The attitude of the warlike and powerful na- 
tions in the past toward the weaker nations has 
been very similar to that of the carnivora toward 
the herbivora. 

International arbitration may somewhat lessen 
the burden of armaments, but the time will be long 
before it can lift the burden. The orators who 
plead at the International Tribunal will speak in 
the voice of the deep-throated guns behind them; 
their persuasion will be that of cold steel, and 
neither brotherly love nor international sympathy 
will be their guide, but self-interest, and no de- 
mands will be relinquished except from policy in 
their observance of such rights of others as are 
warded by the frowning ramparts of opposing 

force. 

Unless all the nations of the world join in the 
pact, then arbitration will simply be an alliance 
for the benefit of the allies themselves as against 
all others. There will be nothing new in such an 
arrangement. The Six Nations of New York did 
the same thing; they formed a federation and set- 
tled their differences by arbitration, and it was 
a good thing for the Six Nations ; but it was not 
a good thing for the neighboring Indian tribes. 

We Americans expect to get all we want any 
way, either with or without arbitration. If we 
expected that the Chinese would be forced upon 

[39] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

us, or our rigMs and privileges curtailed in the 
Orient, we should not think of joining in an ar- 
bitration pact for a minute. 

There will always be the warfare of commerce 
for the markets of the world, and it will be tem- 
pered with avarice, not mercy; and commercial 
warfare will become more and more severe as the 
nations grow, and as competition, with want and 
hunger behind it, gets keen as the sword-edge 
with the crowding of people into the narrow world. 

Unchanging Human Nature 

Human nature is the same today as it was in 
the ante-rebellion days of human slavery. It is 
the same as it was when Napoleon, with the will- 
o'-the-wisp of personal and national glory held 
before the eyes of emotional and impressionable 
Frenchmen, led them to wreck for him the mon- 
archies of Europe. Human nature is the same to- 
day as it was in Caesar's time, when he massacred 
iw^ hundred and fifty thousand Germans — ^men, 
women, and children — in a day, in cold blood, 
while negotiations for peace were pending, and en- 
tered in his diary the simple statement, *^ Caesar's 
legions killed them all." Human nature is the 
same today as it was in the cruel old times, when 
war was the chief business of mankind, and popu- 
lations sold as slaves were among the most profit- 
able plunder. Yes, human nature is the same 

[40] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WAR?, 

as it has always been. Education and Christian 
teaching have made pity and sympathy more fa- 
miliar to the human heart, but avarice and the old 
fighting spirit are kept in leash only by the domi- 
nance of necessity and circumstances, which the 
institutions of civilization impose upon the indi- 
vidual. 

The following is quoted from *^ Origins and 
Destiny of Imperial Britain/' by the late Pro- 
fessor J. A. Cramb : 

^'War may change its shape, the struggle here 
intensifying it, there abating it; it may he up- 
lifted hy ever loftier purposes and nobler causes. 
But ceasef How shall it cease? 

*' Indeed, in the light of history, universal peace 
appears less as a dream than as a nightmare, 
which shall be realized only when the ice has crept 
to the heart of the sun, and the stars, left black 
and trackless, start from their orbits: 



yy 



Max Miiller has told us that the roots of some 
of our words are older than the Egyptian Pyra- 
mids. Far older still are the essential traits of 
human nature. The human nature of today will 
be the human nature of tomorrow, and the human 
nature of tomorrow will be in all essential respects 
the same as it was in ancient Kome, Persia, and 
Egypt, and even in the palmy days of sea-sunk 
Atlantis. 

[411 



DEFENSELESS ^AMERICA 

The best of us are at heart barbarians under 
a thin veneer of civilization, and it is as natural 
for us to revert to barbarous war as for the hog 
to return to his wallow. 

If we were able to apply to the upbuilding of 
our Army and Navy the money that goes to politi- 
cal graft throughout the country, and the money 
that has been squandered, and is still being squan- 
dered through our notorious vote-purchasing pen- 
sions, we could place ourselves upon a war footing 
that would be an absolute guarantee of permanent 
peace. It is not, therefore, very encouraging, to 
enlarge this failing system of laws, in order to 
save an annual expenditure certainly less than 
what the defects of our laws now cost the country. 

Even though international wars may be pre- 
vented by a court of arbitration, can rebellion and 
civil war be prevented, and ought they always to 
be prevented? 

Justifiable Waes 

When the unjust laws of an iniquitous govern- 
ment make existence intolerable for the great mass 
of the people of a country or of a colonial pos- 
session; *^when in the course of human events, it 
becomes necessary" for a people to throw off the 
yoke of oppression, as we did in our War of the 
devolution, or as the French people did in the 
French Revolution, or as the great Chinese peo^ 

[42] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WAR? 

pie have lately done by their rebellion against the 
domination of an intolerable savage Manchu mon- 
archy, then war is the only remedy, and freedom 
can then plead only with the sword. 

I quote the following from Theodore Koosevelt's 
** America and the World War'*: 

*'In 1864 there were in the North some hun- 
dreds of thousands of men ivho praised peace as 
the supreme end, as a good more important than 
all other goods, and who denounced ivar as the 
worst of all evils. These men one and all as- 
sailed and denounced Abraham Lincoln, and all 
voted against him for President, Moreover, at 
that time there were many individuals in England 
and France who said it was the duty of those two 
nations to mediate between the North and the 
South, so as to stop the terrible loss of life and 
destruction of property which attended our Civil 
War; and they asserted that any Americans who 
in such event refused to accept their mediation 
and to stop the war would thereby shoiv them- 
selves the enemies of peace. Nevertheless, Abra- 
ham Lincoln and the men bach of him by their 
attitude prevented all such effort at mediation, 
declaring that they would regard it as an un- 
friendly act to the United States. Looking bach 
from a distance of fifty years, we can now see 
clearly that Abraham Lincoln and his supporters 
were right. Such mediation would have been a 

[43] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

hostile act, not only to the United States hut to 
humanity. The men who clamored for un- 
righteous peace fifty years ago this fall were the 
efiemies of mankind,' 



>f 



Those who are oppressed by the superincnm- 
bent weight of society, and labor for mere exist- 
ence, with no hope of freedom from poverty, are 
slaves as much as were those made bondsmen in 
old-time wars. It matters little whether the wolf 
at the door be a creature of sociological condi- 
tions, or a creature of war. The evil is no less 
real. 

James Eussell Lowell, in his admirable poem on 
France and the French Eevolution, said about the 
most expressive, the most potential, and alto- 
gether the best thing that has ever been said illus- 
trative of the uncontrollable massiveness of the 
popular will, which, under the stimulus of pa- 
triotism or the smart or burden of accumulated 
wrongs, can stampede a nation into war: 

**Asy flake hy flake, the beetling avalanches 

Build up their imminent crags of noiseless snow, 
Till some chance thrill the loosened ruin launches 

And the blind havoc leaps unwarned below. 
So grew and gathered through the silent years 

The madness of a People, wrong by wrong. 
There seemed no strength in the dumb toiler's 
tears, 

[44] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOE WAR? 

No strength in suffering; — hut the Past ivas 
strong: 
The brute despair of trampled centuries 
Leapt up with one hoarse yell and snapt its 

hands, 
Groped for its rights with horny, callous hands. 
And stared around for God with hloodshot eyes/' 

The justification of war depends entirely upon 
the conditions which produce it. In short, war is 
justifiable only when it is a remedy for evils 
greater than the evils of the war. War is some- 
times a very bitter remedy; nevertheless, there 
are diseases much worse than the remedy. The 
horrors of the French Revolution, bad as they 
were, remedied a condition still more horrible, for 
the condition of the French common people, 
** bowed by the weight of centuries,'^ had become 
so abject that life was intolerable; no change 
could be for the worse. Under such circumstances 
there is no fear of death ; the fear of death is only 
fear of the loss of life through love of life. "When 
existence is intolerable, and there is no hope in 
the heart for better things, life, having no value, 
is not much loved, and death has no terrors. 

In spite of all the bloodshed of the reign of 
terror, in spite of all who fell under the leader- 
ship of Napoleon, the French people were bene- 
fited by the Eevolution a thousand-fold more than 
they were injured by it. 

[45] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

If arbitration could prevent such wars, which 
are man's God-given privilege that a people may 
secure its inalienable rights, then arbitration, in 
that respect, would be an iniquitous thing. 

War, at best, is a horrible business. It is a 
reversion to the brute force of primitive savagery, 
and is never justifiable except in the extremity 
of last resort. But we must appreciate and ac- 
knowledge the fact that the horrors of war, the 
sacrifice of treasure, the sacrifice of life, are no 
arguments whatever against war when inalienable 
human rights are at stake that must be fought 
for, and that are worth the sacrifice. 

There are at times objects and obligations which 
are worth the sacrifice. To prevent war in such 
cases would be a disgrace and a crime. 

As Admiral Mahan says, **Even the material 
evils of war are less than the moral evil of com- 
pliance with wrong." 

Christianity and War 

In 1901, the editor of The Christian Herald 
requested me to write an article in answer to the 
following question: **Is it consistent for a loyal 
Christian, who believes that war is contrary to 
the teachings of the Prince of Peace, to engage in 
the manufacture of material designed exclusively 
for the purpose of war?" 

In my reply, I pointed out that the great ma- 

[46] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WAR? 

jority of Christians throughout the world, while 
they hate war, are often called upon themselves 
to become warriors and to fight for their doctrine 
of peace. The Eev. T. De Witt Talmage was^ 
chosen to reply to my article, which he did by 
agreeing with all I had said. 

According to the annals of history, wars have 
almost invariably been caused by one party at- 
tempting to rob another party, or one people an- 
other people. On such occasions, it is self-evident 
that the blame for the wars rested with the rob- 
bers. Those who fought in defense of their lives 
and property, although actual participants in 
warfare, were guiltless. 

Of course, the attempt to rob and plunder has 
sometimes been mutual, and both participants 
have been aggressors, as were Napoleon and 
Alexander in the Kussian war. In the great ma- 
jority of cases, however, one side has been on the 
aggressive, and the other on the defensive. 

When an officer of the law catches an evil-doer 
in the act, and is attacked by him, if, in making 
an arrest, the officer is compelled to draw his own 
revolver and shoot the malefactor, he does a justi- 
fiable act. We have here war in miniature, and 
it may be taken as a type of all wars. While we 
are free to grant that wars are wrong, yet the 
wrong rests entirely with the offenders, instead 
of with the defenders, of human right. 

Housebreaking is wrong, yet the brave knight 

[47] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

who, in mediaeval times, breached a castle wall to 
free some prisoner unjustly held, did a wholly 
commendable act. Similarly, one nation which 
raises an army to free from bondage slaves held 
by another nation, does an equally commendable 
act, and the blame for the war rests with those 
who hold the slaves. 

War is an ugly and an awful thing, while some 
peace theories are very beautiful, and they are 
quite safe in times of peace ; but when, in the past, 
slaves had to be freed, then the true Christians 
took down their old swords and shouldered their 
old guns, and went to the front. If we read the 
inscriptions on the monuments erected to the 
memory of those who died in our great Civil War, 
we find it was an army of Christians who fell. 

War is often a necessity. It cannot always be 
avoided, and, when it comes, we want the best 
tools we can get with which to fight. It is criminal 
negligence for a nation not to be prepared against 
war. It is criminal negligence for a great nation 
not to be abreast of the times in arms and equip- 
inent. 

Often at the bayonet's point, trade and civiliza- 
tion and even Christianity, have been forced upon 
the savage, and upon exclusive and unwarlike 
peoples, and now Christianity, civilization, and 
militarism, sisters of strange relation, hand in 
hand, embrace the world. 

In ** Sartor Kesartus" Carlyle says: 

[48] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WAR? 



it 



The first ground handful of nitre, sulphur, 
and charcoal drove Monk Schwartz's pestle 
through the ceiling. What will the last do?*' 

His own answer is that it will 

". . . achieve the final undisputed prostration 
of force under thought, of animal courage under 
spiritual/* 

Again Carlyle says, in the same work : 

''Such I hold to he tlie genuine use of gun- 
powder: that it makes all men alike tall. Nay, if 
thou he cooler, cleverer than I, if thou have more 
mind, though all hut no hody whatever, then canst 
thou kill me first, and art the taller, Herehy, at 
last is the Goliath powerless and the David resist- 
less; savage animalism is nothing, inventive 
spiritualism is all," 

What does the Bible say about Christ's mission 
of peace ? 

''And suddenly there was with the angel a mul- 
titude of the heavenly host praising God and say- 
ing. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth 
peace, good will toward men'' (Luke II : 13, 14). 

[49] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

*'And thou, child, shall he called the Prophet of 
the Highest . . . to guide our feet into the way 
of peace'' (Lulce 1 : 76, 79). 

''And his name shall he called . . . The Prince 
of Peace'' (Is, IX: 6). 

I hold that there is nothing whatever in the fore- 
going quotations inconsistent with warring for the 
right. From the nature of things, war is often 
the price of peace, and justice can only be en- 
forced by the sword. In the great American Ee- 
bellion it was the voice of guns alone that could 
command the emancipation of the slaves. 

An apostle of the Prince of Peace may often 
best serve his Master by becoming a good soldier. 
The Christian armies that turned back and drove 
out of Europe the invading Moors rendered their 
Master better service than had they, in order to 
escape war, fled before the advancing hosts of 
Islam. 

Should China and India become really aroused 
and advance during the next twenty-five years as 
rapidly as has Japan during a like period in the 
past, and should the great ** Yellow PeriP' rise 
in its might, and threaten the Christian World, is 
there a single soldier of the Cross now enlisted in 
the cause of Peace who would not then buckle on 
his cartridge-belt, shoulder his gun, and go and 
fight in the defense of his religion and his home I 

[50] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WAR?. 

I must confess my belief that, if invasion were 
threatened on the Atlantic Coast, some of the 
pacifists I have met would not buckle on the car- 
tridge-belt, but would, on the contrary, gird up 
their loins, take the advice of Horace Greeley, and 
go West. 

Let us again quote from the Scriptures : 



(( 



tt 



The Lord is a man of war" (Ex. XV :3). 
The Lord of Hosts is his name" (Is, LI :15). 



n 



Blessed he the Lord my strength, which 
teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight" 
(Ps, CXLIV :1). 

It is evident that the modern Christian mis- 
understands Christ's true mission, for he said: 

'* Think not that I am come to send peace on 
earth: I came not to send peace, hut a sword" 
(Matt. X:34). 

''7 am come to send fire on the earth" (Luke 
XII: 49). 

^'And he that hath no sword, let him sell his gar- 
ment and huy one. . . .for the things concerning 
me have an end" (Luke XXII : 36, 37). 

[51] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 
St. Paul said: 

*'For he is the minister of Ood to thee for good. 
But if thou do that which is evil, he afraid; for he 
heareth not the sword in vain; for he is the min- 
ister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon 
him that doeth eviV (Rom, XIII :4), 

Dr. Lyman Abbott, who is one of the best of 
Americans big men, and one of the biggest of 
America's best men, has IJie following to say 
about war : 

'^I am not, therefore, one of those who thinh 
that war is always wrong. I cannot think that 
Jesus Christ Himself inculcated the doctrine that 
force never could be used — He who, when He saw 
the traders in the Temple, did not wait to argue 
with them nor to appeal to their conscience, for 
He knew that they had neither reason nor con- 
science, hut drove them out with a whip of small 
cords, driving the cattle hefore Him and over- 
turning the tables of the money-changers and let- 
ting the money roll upon the floor. I am not 
afraid to follow Him with whatsoever force it may 
he necessary for righteousness to put on, when 
unrighteousness has armed herself to commit 
wrong. I cannot think all war is wrong. If I did, 
I should not want to look upon a Bunker Hill 
Monument, for it would be a monument to our 

[52] 



I CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WAR? 

shame; I should want never to speah the name of 
Gettysburg, for my lips would blister and my 
cheeks would blush; I should want to bury in the 
grave of oblivion the names of Washington and 
Grant.'' 

There can be but one interpretation of Chris- 
tian duty and but one interpretation of true peace. 
"Without justice, the mere absence of war does not 
constitute peace to the Christian. Neither to the 
Christian is warfare waged in the interest of 
justice incompatible with the peace principles 
which underlie his religious faith. Therefore, the 
true interpretation of peace is absence of war, 
where justice reigns, and the true Christian mis- 
sion is to see that justice be done, for without 
it there can be no righteous peace. Such peace as 
can reign with injustice becomes the abettor of 
injustice. 

While I believe in international conciliation and 
arbitration, peace and good will, I do not believe 
in unlimited arbitration. I do not believe that 
arbitration can ever be a universal panacea with 
which all evils can be cured without resort to 
firearms. There are times when throats have to 
be cut, and when God is on the side of the execu- 
tioner. 

When a nation persists perennially in war, it 
can only be brought to peace by some other na- 
tion which will meet it on the battlefield. Christ 

[53] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

established the dictum that they who take the 
sword shall perish by the sword. War begets 
war. The sword brings the sword. As Napoleon 
said about sparing murderers and abolishing capi- 
tal punishment, ' ' Que messieurs les assassins com- 
mencent/' 

We want to put a stop to wars to save life. I 
wonder why it is that we are not equally anxious 
to prevent loss of life from other causes besides 
war. Why are we not equally interested in pre- 
venting the tremendous loss of life from easily 
preventable railroad disasters 1 An international 
movement for safety equipment and sanitation, 
with an enlistment of effort and money equal to 
that being devoted to this great peace movement 
would save many more lives every year than the 
annual loss in the Napoleonic wars. 

Dr. Strong, President of the American Institute 
of Social Service, stated at a dinner several years 
ago, that the number of persons killed and 
wounded every year in the United States alone by 
railroad accidents, steamship accidents, workshop 
accidents, accidents in the streets, and other acci- 
dents — all very largely due to preventable causes 
— amounts to more than 500,000. In the Japanese- 
Eussian war a total of 333,786 men were killed 
and wounded on both sides, not counting the losses 
in naval battles. During the same period in the 
United States alone the great army of American 
laborers engaged in manufacturing and building 

[54] 



CAN LAW BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WAR? 

operations suffered a loss of 425,000 killed and 
injured; 92,000 more were therefore killed and 
injured in our industries in one year than during 
that entire war. 

I wonder why it is that we are not as enthu- 
siastic in this social-service work as we are in 
attacking the problem of war. Is it that there is 
more glory and more that appeals to the martial 
imagination in attacking war and warriors than 
there is in the prosaic, tame, and glamourless 
enterprise of simply saving human life in peace- 
ful pursuits for the mere sake of saving it? Is it 
the old war spirit in the breasts of the peace men 
that moves them? Are they fighters, too? In at- 
tacking war, do they feel that they are somehow 
identified with the pomp and circumstance of 
glorious war J 



[ 55 J 



CHAPTER in 
OUR INCONSISTENT MONROE DOCTRINE 

" If you want war, nourish a doctrine. Doctrines are the most 
frightful tyrants to which men ever are subject, because doctrines 
get inside of a man's own reason and betray him against himself." 
William Graham Sumner, "JP^cw and Other Essays J* 

A DOCTRINE is a creed, usually mandatory, 
framed by one person or set of persons, 
for the belief or conduct of another person 
or set of persons. A doctrine is not necessarily 
based upon principles of right, equity, justice, or 
even expediency. 

Doctrines are directions written on the guide- 
boards of fanaticism. An exact truth is never 
proclaimed as a doctrine : there is no doctrine of 
mathematics. 

The Monroe Doctrine, which pledged the 
United States to defend American republican in- 
stitutions, north and south, against monarchical 
encroachments from the Old World, with the 
dependable support of England, was proclaimed 
in 1823, mainly in response to a Continental doc- 
trine called the Holy Alliance, formed in 1815 
by and between Austria, Russia, Prussia, and 
France. The Holy Alliance was in effect a sys- 

[56] 



OUR INCONSISTENT MONROE DOCTRINE 

tern of mutual political monarchical insurance, 
under which the forces of the allied Powers could 
be used to subdue revolution against the institu- 
tion of kingship. 

The French Revolution, followed by the demo- 
cratic empire of Napoleon, had severely shaken 
the old intolerant and intolerable order of things. 
The Holy Alliance was an expedient of the old 
order to insure itself against democratic institu- 
tions. 

A revolution in Spain in 1820 was promptly 
suppressed by the Holy Alliance, and the Spanish 
people, who had raised their heads and begun to 
look around for freedom, were again bowed under 
the yoke of the detested Bourbons. The Holy Al- 
I liance was surely a most unholy alliance. 

Russia, by a ukase in 1821, claimed the right to 
keep the vessels of all other Powers out of the" 
North Pacific Ocean. That was a Russian ^^ Mon- 
roe Doctrine'' which helped to make Monroe a 
doctrinaire. 

In 1823 Spain lost, through revolutions, all of 
her American possessions except Cuba and Porto 
Rico, and Portugal had lost Brazil. France had 
lost the island of Haiti. 

The United States naturally sympathized with 
the newly-formed states built on the ruins of the 
Spanish and Portuguese empires. They had 
mostly adopted republican institutions, becoming 
sisters of the great northern republic. 

[57] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

James Monroe was not the father of the child 
named for him, for the actual formulator of the 
Monroe Doctrine was John Quincy Adams, at that 
time Secretary of State, who got the cue from 
George Canning. 

England wanted unrestricted trade with the 
Spanish- American countries ; she had no need of 
additional territory on the American continent, 
but she saw danger in its acquisition by other na- 
tions. George Canning tried four times in 1823 
to get the United States to join England in her 
declaration of the open-door policy. Monroe fa- 
vored the proposal, but finally Adams convinced 
the President that it would be better to avoid any 
entangling arrangement with England, and to 
stand alone. 

On the second of December, 1823, in his annual 
message to Congress, President Monroe made the 
following decla-^ation on behalf of the United 
States : 

**The American continents, hy the free and in- 
dependent condition which they have assumed and 
maintain, are henceforth not to he considered as 
subjects for future colonization hy European 
powers, . . . We should consider any attempt 
on their part to extend their system to any por- 
tion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace 
and safety. With the existing colonies or de- 
pendencies of any European power we have not 

[58] 



OUR INCONSISTENT MONROE DOCTRINE 

interfered and shall not interfere. But with the 
governments who have declared their indepen- 
dence and maintained it, and whose independence 
we have, on great consideration and on just prin- 
' ciples, acknowledged, we could not view any in- 
^ terposition for the purpose of oppressing them or 
controlling, in any other manner, their destiny, 
by any European power, in any other light than 
as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition 
, toward the United States.'' 

^ Such was the birth of the famous Monroe Doc- 
trine. Its recognition by England made it ef- 
fective. The Monroe Doctrine has nothing what- 
ever to do with international law. It is simply an 
expression of British national policy for the 
United States. 

Our diplomacy, being a branch of our politics, 
is often inconsistent with our national policy. 
American justification for the doctrine appears 

• to have been mainly dependent upon the fact that 
we had no intentions of encroaching upon the 
spheres of influence of any of the nations of the 

r Old World, but that we intended to safeguard 
what we conceived to be our legitimate sphere of 

[ influence. 

The American Eepublic was very young when 

'* the Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed — a doctrine 

- which, as one writer has said, is *'the most mag- 

[59] 



tfr* 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

nificent bluff in all history, and so far the most 
successful. ' ' 

During the American Civil War, France, with 
the connivance of England, conceived the plan of 
establishing in Mexico the empire of Maximilian. 
We were too busy at the time, settling some little 
differences of opinion within our family of 
states, to exact recognition of our protest. After 
the memorable exchange of compliments and 
courtesies between Grant and Lee at Appomattox, 
however. Uncle Sam indicated to Napoleon the 
Little that the Imperialists must be kicked out. 
Lacking the support of France, they were kicked 
out by the Mexicans. 

While through the Monroe Doctrine the United 
States served notice on the nations of the Old 
World to keep hands off the American continent, 
the doctrine at the same time constituted an im- 
plied promise on our part to keep hands off any 
territory beyond the confines of America. So 
long as the policies of Great Britain did not run 
counter to our Monroe Doctrine, it was destined 
to be quite effective in preventing land-grabbing 
on the American continent by other European 
Powers. But the Monroe Doctrine possesses an 
innate dog-in-the-manger aspect, certain some day f 
to bring trouble, for the great nations of the world 
have far outgrown the expectations of our fore- 
fathers; their commerce has become an insepa- 
rable part of the commerce of South American 

[60] 



OUR INCONSISTENT MONROE DOCTRINE 

countries, and their interests in like measure 
have become identified with the interests of those 
countries. Just to the extent that their welfare 
and the welfare of the South American republics 

» become mutual are they likely to be brought into 
collision with the Monroe Doctrine, and, when the 
collision comes, it means war, unless the United 
States abandons that doctrine. 

Our self-assumed protectorate over the South 
American republics is not welcomed by those 
countries. They resent our arrogance. "We have^ 
never cultivated trade with them, nor joined them 
in the development of their industries, and have 
never financed their enterprises. Even when an 
American citizen has paid a visit to a South Amer- 
ican country, he has first found it necessary to go 
to England and take ship from there. 

The European countries, on the other hand, 
have promoted business relations with the South 
American republics, have supplied them with 
working capital and cultivated their friendship, 
confidence, and respect, while we have done noth- 

> ing of the sort. 

The citizens of the United States whom the 
South Americans have seen in their dominions 

' have usually been adventurous, irresponsible for- 

\ tune-hunters. Their trouble-breeding propensi- 
ties have not tended to foster amicable feeling 

' between the great Eepublic of the North and her; 

V Southern sisters. 

[61] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

So long as the Monroe Doctrine did not cir- 
cumscribe the ambitions of the United States the 
institution possessed some semblance of vitality; 
but, when the explosion came that blew up the 
Maine, it also exploded the Monroe Doctrine, for 
immediately the United States, abandoning its 
time-honored policy of keeping within American 
confines, and out of entangling alliances and com- 
plications with other nations, reached out a grasp- 
ing hand and seized upon the Far Pacific posses- 
sions of Spain, right at the door of China and 
within the legitimate sphere of influence of Japan. 
Yet, curiously enough, we still adhere to the old 
proclamation, America for the Americans, ob- 
livious of the equal right of China and Japan to 
proclaim, Asia for the Asiatics. 

Several years ago, I spoke at a luncheon of 
the Twentieth Century Club in Boston. I was 
seated beside a noted Japanese diplomat. He 
said, ^*Mr. Maxim, you have a Monroe Doctrine 
— America for the Americans; we also have a 
similar doctrine — Asia for the Asiatics; but we 
are not ready to enforce ours yet, and you are not 
ready, and are not likely to be ready, to enforce 
yours. A little later, we shall inquire by what 
logic you can proclaim America for the Ameri- 
cans, and disclaim our right equally to proclaim 
Asia for the Asiatics." 

The Japanese are a far-seeing and a patient 
people. They know how to wait, but they know 

[62] 



OUR INCONSISTENT MONROE DOCTRINE 

also when to strike, and how to strike with the 
force of a Jovian thunderbolt. They are no 
longer merely a cute little picture-book people. 
They have risen with stupendous strides into a 
very eminent position as a World-Power, a Power 
to be reckoned with. They are different from us, 
but we have no right to consider them our in- 
feriors. They may very possibly prove to be our 
superiors. A government of the people and for 
the people is a failure if the government does not 
take measures for the adequate defense of the 
people. Self-preservation is the first law of na- 
ture. Consequently, it is a law which must be ob- 
served as the chief element of greatness. 

I quote the following from **The Valor of Igno- 
rance," by General Homer Lea: 

"How unreasonable is it to expect that the 
combined nations of Europe, with all their mili- 
tary strength, shall remain restricted to one- 
twelfth of this world's land, burrowed into and 
hewn over for the last thousand years, while this 
Republic, without armies, shall maintain dominion 
over one-half the unexploited lands of the world! 
Or that Japan, possessed of two-thirds the popu- 
lation of this nation and a military organization 
fifty-fold greater, shall continue to exist on her 
rocJcy isles that are, inclusive of Korea, but one- 
twO'hundred-and-fiftieth of the earth's lands, 

[63] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

while an undefended one-half lies under the guns 
of her battleships! 

• • • •' •' •' '• 

^^The Monroe Doctrine is Promethean in con- 
ception, hut not so in execution. It was pro- 
claimed in order to avoid wars; now it invites 
them, . . . 

'^The Monroe Doctrine, if not supported hy 
naval and military power sufficient to enforce its 
observance by all nations, singly and in coalition, 
becomes a factor more provocative of war than 
any other national policy ever attempted in mod- 
ern or ancient times. . . . Societies, religions, 
unions, business men, and politicians on the one 
hand, spare no effort to debase every militant 
instinct and military efficiency or preparation 
necessary for its enforcement, while, on the other, 
they demand that the Chief Executive shall assert 
to the entire world this Republic's intention to 
maintain, by the force of arms if necessary, this 
most warlike and encompassing policy ever enun- 
ciated by man or nation. 



ff 



The Monroe Doctrine did not require that any 
American possessions of the European monarch- 
ies should be relinquished, but simply that they 
should not be extended; and that, if relinquished 
or lost, they should not be re-established as mon- 
archical possessions. 

England, being in possession of the vast domain 

[64] 



OUR INCONSISTENT MONROE DOCTRINE 

of Canada in North America, British Honduras 
and British Gniana in South America, and a 
goodly number of the West Indian islands, was in 
a position to look with favor on the Monroe Doc- 
trine, because in the event of Great Britain being 
defeated in war by any of the Great Powers, her 
victor or victors would be unable to seize any of 
her American possessions, for automatically the 
United States would become an ally of Great 
Britain, and would, in order to defend the Monroe 
Doctrine, have to defend these possessions. 

When Sir Charles Tupper was High Commis« 
sioner of Canada, the writer saw him in London, 
and suggested to him that it would be a good idea 
for the Canadians to buy some automatic guns. He 
replied that Canada was very peculiarly situated ; 
that she could not be attacked successfully by any 
Power unless the British fleet were first destroyed, 
which was not likely, and, in the possible event of 
that fleet being destroyed, then the United States 
would be obliged to defend Canada in order to de- 
fend the Monroe Doctrine. 

The peace sophists often refer to the unforti- 
fied border-line between the United States and 
Canada as an argument in favor of the abolition 
of armaments throughout the world. They fail to 
perceive that the same unarmed condition would 
not work between European countries, as, for 
example, between France and Germany. If the 
people of Canada and the United States were as 

[65] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

different in race, language, ideals, and ambitions 
as are the French and Germans ; and if, also, the 
two countries were as thickly settled and the in- 
habitants as land-hungry; and if each had a his- 
tory as antagonistic as the French and Germans ; 
then fortifications would be needed on the Cana- 
dian border. But the Canadians and ourselves 
are of the same race, we speak the same tongue, 
we have similar ideals and ambitions, and our 
history is not antagonistic ; on the contrary, it has 
been largely a common history — ^the history of 
England, the mother country. 

England and France were obligated to defend 
Belgium against Germany. Their defenses con- 
sisted mainly in bluff, but they were, nevertheless, 
far better prepared to support Belgium than we 
would be to support any South American country 
against German aggression. 

The navy of England is so far superior to ours 
that should she at any time care to ignore the 
Monroe Doctrine and colonize in South America 
we should be absolutely unable to prevent her. 
She would be able to isolate us from South Amer- 
ica and from the rest of the world, within the 
continental territory of the forty-eight states. An 
impenetrable barrier of British warships would lie 
between us and the Panama Canal. Therefore, 
it will be seen that our Monroe Doctrine is an 
Anglo-American compact, an entente, which we 
are obliged to defend if it should be in the interest 

[66] 



OUR INCONSISTENT MONROE DOCTRINE 

of Great Britain, and which Great Britain would 
not be obliged to observe in case she might want 
to ignore it : 

Let us invite Admiral Mahan to conclude this 
chapter: 

''In the Monroe Doctrine, as now understood, 
and viewed in the light of the Venezuela incident, 
with the utterances then made by our statesmen of 
all parties, we have on hand one of the biggest 
contracts any modern state has undertaken/' 



[67] 



CHAPTEE IV. 

MODERN METHODS AND MACHINERY OF 

WAR 

" In the course of time, no one knows when or how soon, the 
family of nations may get to playing at cards, and beyond the 
sea, perhaps, will be found a * full hand ' against our three ' aces * 
— the Navy, Coast Fortifications, and the Militia." 

Lieut. Gen. Adna R. Chaffee, U.8.A. 

" Whenever a nation's attitude toward war is evasive, its con- 
duct indecisive, and its preparation an indifferent, orderless as- 
sembling of forces, it prepares for defeat." 

Homer Lea. 

IN the Sunday American of the seventeenth of 
January of this year, Mr. Andrew Carnegie 
gave expression to some opinions that chal- 
lenge the attention of all thinking people of our 
country who, in this trying time of war, are be- 
coming aroused and are asking themselves the 
question : Are we adequately prepared against the 
dread eventuality of war, and if not adequately 
prepared, why not? 

There is no person, of howsoever humble a 
station, whose opinion has not some weight. 
Horace Greeley — or was it Henry Ward Beecher? 
— once said that his views upon a very important 
subject underwent a material change from conver- 

[68] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

sation with a blacksmith while having his horse 
shod. 

The opinion of Andrew Carnegie, the greatest 
steel and iron smith the world has ever known, is 
certain to have great weight with a very large 
number of persons, whatever the subject may be 
upon which he expresses himself. 

The world owes Andrew Carnegie a debt of deep 
gratitude for many most munificent and beneficent 
actions, and our gratitude to him has begotten 
love for him, and our gratitude and our love beget 
our sympathetic attention whenever he speaks. 
Consequently, when Mr. Carnegie speaks upon the 
subject of our national defense, he is bound to ex- 
ercise a tremendous power for good or evil, and 
this power for good or evil is directly proportion- 
ate to the extent that his opinions are right or 
wrong. 

At this time, the question of our national de- 
fense is one of so serious concern that anything a 
well and favorably known man says may have a 
determining effect upon the minds of many per- 
sons, and thereby be fruitful of national good 
or national harm. 

If Mr. Carnegie is right in his belief that our 
best defense is in military defenselessness, then 
he is doing the country a great service through the 
wide publicity given to his opinions. If, on the 
other hand, he is in the wrong, he is doing this 
country a very great injury, and his words not 

[69] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

only help defeat Congressional appropriations for 
building more guns, but also help to spike the few 
guns we have. 

Let us. first consider some of the more remark- 
able and also the more radical of his statements. 
He says, to quote: 

^'Not one of the great nations has the slightest 
desire to he other than friendly with the United 
States, We are a friend to all; an enemy of none. 
They could gain nothing by a war with us, nor 
would we hy a war with them. We have no ter- 
ritorial ambitions, and only desire to be left alone, 

'*As for this foolish talk of an invasion, that 
is an impossible contingency. Imagine any coun- 
try being able to successfully bring enough troops 
to accomplish anything worth while from a mili-r 
tary standpoint from a point three thousand miles 
off and attach a hundred millions of people! 

*^I have always said that if at any time any 
country was foolish enough to attempt invasion 
the best possible plan would be to mahe their 
landing as easy as possible, point out to them 
the best possible roads, and allow them to go as 
far as they desired to go inland. Then warn them 
to look out, and turn a million of our 16,000,000 
of militia loose upon them. Getting in would be 
easy, but how to get out would result in sur- 
render, 

** There is no other country in the world so well 

[70] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

equipped to repel invasion or make it so hot for an 
enemy should he land as to make him exceedingly 
sorry he ever tried it," 

The foregoing statements of Mr. Carnegie con:- 
tain in a nutshell the whole pith and gist of the 
present anti-armament peace advocacy, backed by 
the ten-million-dollar Carnegie foundation, repre- 
senting an income of half a million dollars a year. 

Now, if it happens to be a fact that these views 
of Mr. Carnegie and his coterie of peace advo- 
cates are wrong, and if w^e need to take immediate 
and radical measures for our national defense, 
then whenever the Carnegie advocacy prevents a 
battery of guns being built, the resultant injury 
to the country is as great as though a battery of 
our guns were to be destroyed, or as though a bat- 
tery of guns were made for a possible enemy. 

Truly, as Mr. Carnegie states, we are friendly 
to other nations, and we do not want any of their 
territory, but I do not agree with him that we have 
nothing which they might want, for we are both 
very rich and very defenseless, and the history 
of nations has shown that always the rich and 
the defenseless sooner or later become the prey 
of the poor and the powerful. 

One after another of the surrounding nations 
will likely be drawn into the war before it is over. 
After the present belligerents have settled their 
scores with the sword, there will be other scores 

[71] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

to be settled between the victors and the neutral 
nations. Differences between the warring and 
the neutral powers — differences which, in time of 
peace, might produce very strained relations or 
precipitate war — ^may now be lightly passed over 
as mere discourtesies. But, after the war, some 
of the acts of the neutrals that at present seem 
quite insignificant may be magnified to advantage 
as casus belli. 

It is my opinion that, whichever side wins, the 
United States will likely have to fight the winner 
within a short time after the war is over, for 
neither the Germans nor the Allies, in the heat 
of passion that now dominates them, will be in a 
mood to forgive some of the things that we may 
feel compelled to do in the maintenance of our 
neutrality. In short, the things that we may be 
led to do to avoid being embroiled in the present 
war may serve to embroil us with the victors, un- 
less the war should end in a draw. 

Mr. Carnegie thinks it would be quite a difficult 
undertaking for a foreign nation to land troops 
enough on our shores successfully to contend with 
our people. Our expert army and navy officers, 
who have been educated at government expense, 
and who are supposed to know about such mat- 
ters, tell us that it would be impossible for us to 
mobilize and bring to the front more than 30,000 
of our standing Army during the first month ; and 
that it would be impossible to mobilize and get our 

[72] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

militia into shape to resist an army of 100,000 of 
the well-trained and well-armed troops of one 
of the Great Powers, inside of a year and a 
half. 

Also, our naval and military experts tell us 
that it would require not only months, but years, 
to get our Navy into such efficient fighting trim as 
to be able to resist the navy of any one of the 
leading Great Powers of the world. They tell us 
that we are so short of ammunition that we might 
easily exhaust the present supply in the first four 
weeks of the war, and possibly in the first few 
days of the war. 

We are in the habit of speaking of our Navy 
as ranking somewhere second or third from the 
top. As a matter of fact, we rank much lower 
than that, because of the shortage of our ammuni- 
tion supply. Just as a steam-engine cannot be 
run without fuel, regardless of its size and power, 
so a navy cannot be run without gunpowder. 

When the present war broke out, France, Ger- 
many, and England each had ten times as much 
smokeless powder on hand as we had. We have 
between forty and fifty million pounds of smoke- 
less powder at the present time, whereas we 
should have 500,000,000 pounds. 

The only difficulty in landing as large an army 
as an enemy might desire upon our shore, would 
be in overcoming our fleet. Once our fleet were 
smashed, an enemy could land a hundred thou- 

[73] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

sand men, either on our Atlantic or on our Pacific 
seaboard, long before we could mobilize the troop^ 
we have. In fact, a quarter of a million men could 
be landed before we could get the troops we have 
into fighting shape. 

Let us examine for one moment Mr. Carnegie's 
proposition to welcome an army of invaders, show- 
ing them the best roads to the interior, and then 
turning lose on them a million improvised citi- 
zen soldiers. Like Pompey, Mr, Carnegie seems 
to believe that he can raise an army at will by 
stamping his foot upon the ground. 

Not only should we have to raise the million 
men, but also we should have to provide small 
arms, Maxim guns, rapid-fire field-cannon, and 
siege howitzers for them. At least four years' 
instruction and experience in the use of these 
weapons would be required ; furthermore, the men 
would have to be imbued with the courage that 
veterans have, which can be acquired only after 
much experience on the firing-line; they would 
have to be officered by men of military education 
and training, and lastly, they would need large 
corps of trained and experienced engineers, and 
also a trained commissariat. 

None of these things can be created in a day, or 
a month, or made efficient in a year, so that the* 
army of invaders, after it had received the Car- 
negie welcome and had taken possession of the 
country, would have quietly to wait for us to get 

[74] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

ready to swoop down on them, as Mr. Carnegie 
suggests. 

When the present war is over, should one of 
the belligerent nations, with its veteran fighting 
blood up, attack us, how are we prepared to meet 
that attack! 

Our army and navy men tell us that our position 
is pathetically defenseless. They tell us that, 
should our Navy be destroyed or evaded, and an 
army of only a hundred thousand men, equipped 
with all of the arms and paraphernaKa of modern 
warfare, be landed on our coast, the invading 
army could go anywhere it might see fit, live off 
the country, capture our big cities, and hold us 
up for ransom in spite of all that we could 
do. 

What could we do 1 How could we flee ! Where 
could we flee ? We simply could not flee. Most of 
us have doubtless thought that if war should be 
declared, we would seek safety in the interior. 
But immediately war is declared, all the railroads 
and all automobiles will be commandeered for 
military purposes. All banks will close. All se- 
curities will be rendered worthless, and we, re- 
duced to penniless hoboes, will be compelled to 
stay right here and face the music. 

Let us assume merely that an invading army of 
a hundred thousand men should be landed near 
New York. Should this army send out detach- 
ments to capture the places where our arms and 

[75] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

munitions of war are made, they would not have 
far to go. 

A Rich Prize for a Hostile Army 

They would find the smokeless powder works of 
the United States Army and the Picatinny Ar- 
senal, where all the smokeless powder and high 
explosives of the United States Army are stored, 
near Dover, New Jersey, about thirty-five miles 
from New York; also they would find there the 
big naval depot for ammunition and explosives. 

At Bridgeport, Connecticut, they would find the 
Union Metallic Cartridge Works, and the Ameri- 
can and British Manufacturing Company's Works 
for the manufacture of rapid-fire cannon, and at 
New Haven they would find the Winchester Re- 
peating Arms and Cartridge Company's Works 
and the Marlin Firearms Works. At Springfield, 
Massachusetts, they would find the Smith and 
Wesson Revolver Works and also the United 
States Arsenal, where our rifles are made. At 
Hartford, Connecticut, they would find the Colt 
Patent Firearms, and the Pratt and Whitney 
Works ; at Ilion, New York, the Remington Small 
Arms Works, and at Utica, New York, the Sav- 
age Arms Works. 

They would find one of our most important big- 
gun factories at Troy, New York, and another 
at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, where also much of 

[76] 







^^^^/ 




1 FORTLAr^ 






^^^^^^^p 


^ 


\j 


SYRACvd, 


^B 


^^^^^B 


B 


w»f73^E/r// 






^^^^^^^m 


^P 


^kc^/V 


.Zl^^^m^, 




^^^^^^B 


H 


^^^^\ 






■ 


^^P 


/<j> 










^^^^ 


p^ 




^ 




^m 






"^ v'^ 


y1^^^ 


^w 






WASH/NCfpN \ \ f. 


^ 1^ 


^^ 






, 1 ^ 


i 







The Heart of America 

ff^itkin a circle of 170 miles radius dravon around Peekskill, N. Y., are embraced New York 
City, Boston, Philadelphia, and many other important cities; also most of the manufactories 
9f armaments and war materials, together vaitk the principal coal fulds of Pennsylvania 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

our armor-plate is made. The big Cramp Ship- 
building Works would be found at Philadelphia. 
They would find at Groton, Connecticut, the fac- 
tory where all the interior parts of the Holland 
submarine boats are made, and at Fore River, 
Massachusetts, the big shipyard where the Hol- 
land submarine and other war vessels are con- 
structed. 

They would find the Lake Submarine Torpedo 
Boat Works at Bridgeport, the United States 
Naval Torpedo Station at Newport, Ehode 
Island, and one of our biggest navy yards, to- 
gether with the E. W. Bliss Torpedo Works, in 
Brooklyn. The New York Arsenal they would 
find unprotected on Governor's Island. They 
would find the great duPont Smokeless Powder 
Works at Carney's Point, Parlin and Pompton 
Lakes, New Jersey, and at various points in New 
Jersey the largest and most important high-ex- 
plosives works in the world. 

Take a map of the United States, and a pair 
of compasses, and with one point placed on the 
Hudson River, at Peekskill, New York, draw 
a circle having a radius of a hundred-and-sixty 
miles. There will be included within that circle 
all of the above-mentioned ammunition and arma- 
ment works, which constitute nearly all the smoke- 
less powder works, cartridge works, torpedo-boat 
works, small-arms works, and big-gun and armor- 
plate works in the United States. Also, this circle 

[77] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

will include not only New York and nearby cities, 
but also Boston, Albany, Syracuse, Philadelphia, 
and the most important coal fields of Pennsyl- 
vania. 

The conquest of this area would not be a work 
of months, or of years, but only of a few days, 
and the thing would be done before we had time 
to mobilize the available fighting forces we have, 
much less to enlist and train and arm a citizen 
soldiery. 

This \'ital area is the solar plexus of Uncle Sam, 
and an army of a hundred thousand trained men,' 
landed on our Atlantic seaboard, would be able 
to capture this entire area and subdue the popu- 
lace as easily as the police force of New York 
can subdue a rioting mob. 

While we were arming and training our million 
men to make the Carnegie swoop, the army of in- 
vaders would be very busy. 

They would commandeer all our above-men- 
tioned factories, and proceed to operate them with 
skilled American labor, which they would also com- 
mandeer and force to work, just as the Germans 
have forced the Belgians to work for them, and 
Mr. Carnegie's army of citizen soldiers would 
find themselves without means either of arming 
themselves or of supplying themselves with am- 
munition or of getting the skilled labor necessary 
to do the work. 

But this is not all that the invaders would be 

[78] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

doing while we were getting our million men to- 
gether. They would have means of knowing what 
we were doing, and they would send out a detach- 
ment and defeat our whole enterprise. They 
would probably levy on New York City for a bil- 
lion dollars, and levy upon all the cities in the 
captured area for every dollar that could be 
squeezed from the inhabitants under threats of 
destruction. 

Not only this, but they might take the notion, 
and probably would take the notion, to annex the 
conquered territory, just as Germany has annexed 
Belgium, and, as we should then automatically 
become citizens of the enemy's country, we should 
be conscripted and forced to fight our own people, 
just as the Belgians, according to report, have 
been forced into the ranks of the Germans. 

Such a military measure is not new ; it is as old 
as war itself. Frederick the Great frequently 
forced his prisoners to fight in his own ranks, and 
Napoleon Bonaparte sometimes gave them the 
option of joining his legions or of faring much 
worse. Attila took with him the entire male popu- 
lation of the countries through which he passed as 
additions to his military host. Those who re- 
sisted were immediately killed, and those he did 
not need were killed, whether they resisted or not. 
As to what may be done in war, there is no arbiter 
but necessity. 

To receive an invading army is not so pleasant a 

[79] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

thing as Mr. Carnegie assumes. As guests they 
are just about as lovable and make just about as 
good pets in the family as rattlesnakes, cobras, 
scorpions, and tarantulas. 

A few Americans who were caught in the war 
zone when the present war broke out got some 
useful knowledge of war's inconveniences and 
harassments. What the people for whom there 
was no escape suffered in Belgium and Northern 
France, is beyond our powers of conception. No 
one who has not had personal experience can form 
the least idea of the barbarous atrocities per- 
petrated by an invading army on the defenseless 
population. 

Invaders always live off the invaded country. 
It is considered more important that they should 
live well than that any one else should live at all. 
If, after the invaders ' wants are supplied, there is 
enough left for the people to live on, well and 
good; if not, then the people must starve. The 
invaders must have food and clothing and the bare 
necessaries of life ; also, they must have luxuries. 
They must have cigars and cigarettes, wine, 
women, and song. If our country should be in- 
vaded, we should not only have to furnish food, 
clothing, cigars, cigarettes, and wine for the 
armies of the enemy, but also our wives and our 
daughters and our sweethearts would be com- 
mandeered to supply the women and song. 

Occasionally, an American citizen, with more 

[80] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

manliood than discretion, would resent a name- 
less indignity, and kill some military blackguard, 
who would immediately be avenged by the burn- 
ing of the town and the corralling and shooting 
of the people with machine-guns. This is not an 
overdrawn picture — the thing has actually been 
done in the present war. 

It is very likely that some of us who look upon 
this page will be forced to see wife or daughter or 
sweetheart namelessly maltreated to gratify the 
brutal lust of an invader, and lose our own life 
for a blow on the scoundrel's jaw or a stab in 
his ribs, unless — aye, there's the rub — ^unless this 
whole country awakens to its danger and rises up 
as one man and demands prompt and adequate 
defensive measures for national protection. As 
this saving thing is not likely to happen, the 
entire country east of the Alleghanies will prob- 
ably be Belgiumized with fire and the sword, de- 
predated, degraded, and desolated by an invading 
army within a very short time after the European 
War is over. 

This is an age of mechanics — an age wherein 
man-made mechanism more and more replaces 
hand work. Everywhere in our industries of 
peace, we have seen labor-saving machinery re- 
place the labor of human hands. Today all the 
men in the world could not do by hand all of the 
world's ploughing, sowing, reaping, and carrying 
of the world's food to market; all the women in 

[81] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

the world could not, today, do the world's sewing 
without the sewing-machine; and all the men in 
the world and all the women in the world com- 
bined could not, today, do a tenth of the world's 
writing without the typewriter and type-setting 
and printing machinery. 

One of the giant dredges that have been ladling 
out of the Panama Canal the vast landslides, can 
do the pick and shovel and wheelbarrow work of 
a thousand men. Everywhere, in everything we 
do, and in everything done for us, we find human 
hands now mainly engaged in guiding the work of 
labor-saving machinery. 

The people of the United States of America 
have been able to develop their enormous re- 
sources and to keep abreast of the world's indus- 
trial progress mainly by the invention of labor- 
saving machinery under the protection of our 
patent law. 

In our competition with other nations for the 
markets of the world, no one thinks of referring 
to the prowess of our unskilled citizen soldiers of 
industry unsupported by machinery, but all reli- 
ance is placed upon our multiform labor-saving 
machinery, and our skilled labor behind that 
machinery. 

With these pregnant facts before us, it is very 
strange that it should not be perfectly plain to 
every one that what is true of labor-saving ma- 
chinery in peace is likewise true in war. It is 

[82] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

very strange indeed that there should be intelli- 
gent men and women among us unable to see and 
to understand that labor-saving machinery and 
labor skilled in its use are as applicable and as 
indispensable to successful warfare as to peaceful 
industry. Furthermore, labor-saving machinery 
in war is life-saving machinery. The quick-firing 
gun is the greatest life-saving instrument ever in- 
vented. These persons do not seem to appreciate 
that war is an industry. As a matter of stern 
fact, war is, and has always been, the biggest and 
the most vital industry of mankind, and in no 
other industry is labor-saving machinery so im- 
portant and so vital, and in no other industry 
does so much depend upon the skill of the labor 
operating the machinery. 

We are the slaves of belief, and we love our 
chains. Although our faith may be false, we hate 
the hand that tries to free us. The people of this 
country have a great false faith in the fighting 
qualities of their citizen soldiery, improvised in 
time of war. They point proudly to the War of 
the Eevolution and the War of the Rebellion to 
prove how our volunteer soldiers can fight. They 
overlook the fact that fighting was then mostly 
done by hand ; that now it is mostly done by ma- 
chinery, and that it is just as foolish and absurd 
to think of taking untrained men oif the farm 
to operate the guns and machinery of war as it 
would be to try to operate the factories with them 

[83] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

where the guns and machinery are made. It takes 
as long today to convert a farmer into a skilled 
soldier as it does to convert him into a skilled 
mechanic. 

Battles are no longer decided merely by the 
patriotism and personal bravery of the rank and 
file, nor even by their numbers, but by the effi- 
ciency and sufficiency of machinery and materials 
of destruction and the science and scientific ex- 
perience of the commanding officers. There is 
no time to build steam-fire-engines or to train 
fire brigades after a conflagration has broken 
out. 

A citizen soldiery without years of training in 
the discipline and weapons and mechanism of 
modern warfare is only a mob, as easily scattered 
hj a few real soldiers as chaif by a whirlwind. 

George Washington held the following opinion 
about the value of militia in warfare : 

'* Regular troops alone are equal to the exigen- 
cies of modern war, as well for defense as offense, 
and when a substitute is attempted it must prove 
illusory and ruinous. No militia will ever acquire 
the habits necessary to resist a regular force . . . 
the firmness requisite for the real business of 
fighting is only to be attained by a constant course 
of discipline and service. I have never yet been 
witness to a single instance that can justify a dif- 
ferent opinion, and it is most earnestly to he 

[84] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

wished that the liberties of America may no longer 
he trusted, in any material degree, to so precari- 
ous a dependence,'^ — Washington. 

If Washington held it a mistake to rely on un- 
trained, undisciplined men in time of war, who 
can differ with him today, when not only bravery 
and discipline are required, but also a knowledge 
of the complicated enginery of warfare? 

It is obvious to any one that ten men armed 
with the modern magazine shoulder-rifle, with a 
range of more than two miles, would easily be able 
to defeat a thousand men — a hundred times their 
number — armed with slings and bows and arrows, 
short-swords and spears, as was the army of Han- 
nibal. HannibaPs famous Balearic slingers were 
able to hurl a slug of lead through a man. But ten 
riflemen would have time to kill a thousand of them 
before they could get within sling range. A thou- 
sand of the famous English bowmen who fought 
at Agincourt could all be destroyed by our 
ten riflemen before they could get within bow- 
shot. 

The same thing holds equally true with old 
short-range and obsolete firearms, as compared 
with the longer range and more accurate guns of 
the latest pattern. Ten good marksmen, armed 
with the latest rifles, could kill a thousand equally 
skilled marksmen armed with the old muzzle- 
loaders of the Civil War, before they could get 

[85] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

within range. These ten men would each be able 
to fire with ease a carefully aimed shot every two 
and a half seconds; the ten men could fire 250 
aimed shots a minute. A thousand men, armed 
with the old muzzle-loaders, would surely have to 
advance at least a mile and a half after coming 
within range of the modern rifles before they could 
get the ten riflemen within range of their muzzle- 
loaders. Charging forward on the run, it would 
take them at least ten minutes to cover the mile 
and a half. In that time the ten riflemen would 
be able to fire 2,500 carefully-aimed shots. Such 
is the difference in the potentiality of troops de- 
pendent upon suitable arms. 

With the modern automatic magazine-rifle a 
single soldier would be able to defeat a hundred 
men armed with the old smooth-bore single-shot 
muzzle-loaders of the Civil War ; in fact, he would 
be able to kill or wound every one of them in an 
open frontal attack over level ground with his 
long-range rapid-fire rifle before they could get 
near enough even to reach him with their short- 
range muskets. One man operating an automatic 
machine-gun would be more than a match for a 
thousand men, armed with the old Civil War mus- 
ket in an open- view frontal attack, over a distance 
covered by the range of the machine gun. In fact, 
with this weapon, firing 600 shots a minute, he 
could play the gun on their advancing line with the 
freedom of a hose pipe, and put them hors de 

[86] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

combat in a few minutes — certainly, before they 
could get near enough to reach him with their 
short-range guns. 

Half a dozen automatic machine-guns sup- 
ported by a battery of half a dozen modern rapid- 
fire field-guns throwing shrapnel shell at the rate 
of from thirty to forty a minute, planted on Ceme- 
tery Hill, would have been able to defeat Pickett's 
charge at Gettysburg more quickly than did the 
entire Army of the Potomac. 

It is obvious, therefore, that a nation's war po- 
tentiality depends very largely upon its prepared- 
ness to fight by machinery, and that a mere citi- 
zen soldiery, without the machinery of modern 
warfare, is as impotent in the face of modern war 
engines as a swarm of ants in the face of an ant- 
eater. It is obvious that, whereas fighting ma- 
chinery is very expensive, modern warfare is a 
very costly business, and a business requiring an 
enormous investment; and also that, whereas a 
thing is worth most in war which can, for the 
least cost, produce the best results, machinery be- 
comes much more valuable than life. A single 
field-piece may be worth more than a hundred 
men, and at times even more than a thousand 
men. 

In modern warfare, the cost in treasure and ma- 
chinery is of far greater concern than the loss in 
blood. Therefore, the efficiency and great cost of 
all kinds of modern fighting equipment have 

[87] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

served to give the great nations pause, and to 
make them consider well the awful risk before pre- 
cipitating war. The progress in fighting ma- 
chinery of every sort has been so rapid, and the 
number of wars so few, that until now there has 
been no adequate opportunity to test fighting 
machinery in actual warfare. 

In direct proportion as warfare becomes more 
scientific, complicated, and expensive does it re- 
quire longer time to prepare for war, both in the 
making of the enginery and in the making of the 
soldiers. 

Time signifies only the measure of change. 
Consequently, time is merely a relative term, in- 
dicative of the sequence in a series of happenings 
or eventuations. If the universe were annihilated, 
there would be no such thing as time because noth- 
ing would happen. 

Were we to be attacked by any foreign Power, 
we should be able to rely, not upon what we might 
be able to produce three or four years afterward, 
but upon what we should be able to put into action 
at once. Modern methods and machinery of war 
cause events to move many times as fast as in 
former wars. Three months is a long time after 
war is declared. A six months ' war today is rela- 
tively as long as a six years ' war used to be. 

The following extract from Bernhardi's *^How 
Germany Makes War'' is evidence of that expert's 
opinion of the factor of time : 

[88] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

^'If Germany is involved in war, she need not 
recoil before the numerical superiority of her ene- 
mies. But so far as human nature is able to tell, 
she can only rely on being successful if she is reso- 
lutely determined to break the superiority of her 
enemies by a victory over one or the other of them 
before their total strength can come into action, 
and if she prepares for war to that effect, and acts 
at the decisive moment in that spirit which made 
Frederick the Great seise the sword against a 
tvorld in arms," 

Napoleon once said, **The fate of nations often 
hangs on five minutes," and, ''God fights on the 
side of the heaviest artillery." Also, he said, in 
effect, that the art of winning battles depends 
upon the concentration on the chief point of attack 
of a force superior to the enemy at that point. 

If we pass our fiLuger down the pages of history, 
we shall find the above expression of Napoleon 
thoroughly substantiated and vindicated. Most 
great battles have been won by the concentration 
of a superior force upon an inferior force at some 
vulnerable point, and often quite irrespective of 
the sizes of the opposing armies taken as a whole. 
Everything depends upon the quickness in con- 
centration of concerted action. The herculean 
physique of Goliath did not count for much after 
little David hit him with the pebble. He needs be 
a big man indeed not to be whipped when even a 

[89] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

small antagonist has succeeded in thrusting a dag- 
ger close to the heart. Armies, like individuals, 
have vital parts, the penetration of which means 
defeat. 

Alexander the Great frequently met and anni- 
hilated armies many times larger than his own. 
He was often weaker than the enemy as a whole, 
but at the point of attack he was always vastly the 
stronger. This enabled him to crush the enemy in 
detail. Hannibal, Caesar, Charles Martel, Marl- 
borough, Cromwell, Frederick the Great, Na- 
poleon, Grant, Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Sheridan 
— all great captains — appreciated and applied this 
winning principle: Be able to strike the enemy 
upon one given point with greater force than he 
shall be able to oppose, and strike first; then 
follow up the advantage and crush the enemy in 
detail by concentrated force always superior at 
the point of attack, however inferior to the gen- 
eral force to which it is opposed and through 
which it penetrates. 

Broadly speaking, the machinery of modern 
warfare adds a thousand-fold to the potentiality 
of the soldier in battle above his potentiality at 
the time of the Civil War. 

Ten thousand men, armed with modern guns 
and all the paraphernalia of modern warfare, 
would on the battle-line be more than a match for 
a million men armed with the old smooth-bore 
guns of the Civil War. As a matter of fact they 

[90] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

t could kill all that surrounded them as fast as they 
approached from every quarter, and they could 
advance through the opposing lines with absolute 
freedom without the loss of a single man from the 
fire of the enemy. 

Let us see for one moment what ten thousand 
men would be able to do upon such a host in open 
frontal attack: Let us assume that the ten thou- 

) sand were armed with a thousand automatic 
guns, and, say, a hundred rapid-fire field-guns, 
in addition to the usual magazine shoulder-rifle. 

) As soon as the enemy came in sight, the ten thou- 
sand would open on them with their hundred field- 
guns, pouring into their ranks a perfect storm of 
shrapnel. The old, smooth-bore field-guns of the 
enemy would be completely disabled before they 
could be brought within cannon-shot of the ten 
thousand. As soon as the enemy came within 

\ rifle range, the ten thousand would open on them 
with their thousand automatic machine-guns and 
magazine-rifles. As an automatic machine-gun 

' fires at the rate of 600 shots a minute, a thousand 
would fire at the rate of 600,000 shots a minute. 
The magazine shoulder-rifles wouldfire aimed shots 
at the rate of twenty-five a minute, and the quick- 
firing field-guns would each fire shrapnel at the 

^ rate of forty a minute. Making every allowance 
for stoppages and for variables, dispersion of fire 
and bad marksmanship, there would be enough ef- 

^ fectual hits with the shrapnel, the automatic ma- 

[91] 



M 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

chine-gun fire, and the magazine-rifle fire, to kill 
or wound every man of the enemy before that 
enemy could get near enough to reach the ten 
thousand with their old smooth-bore muskets. 

Every automatic gun and every quick-firing 
field-gun and every magazine shoulder-rifle puts 
in the hands of our soldiers the means of avoiding 
a corresponding sacrifice of their lives. Not only 
this, but every automatic gun that we make and 
furnish our troops enables one man to do the 
work of a hundred men; it enables a hundred 
men to remain at home engaged in peaceful pur- 
suits while only one man has to go to the battle 
front and fight. 

Then let us realize the fact that every automatic 
gun saves a hundred lives from jeopardy. Every 
magazine-rifle saves ten lives, and every quick- 
firing field-cannon saves easily a hundred lives. 

This should make a strong appeal to the pro- 
fessional pacifists who pretend that they want to 
save life. Surely, if war cannot be prevented, 
and all history, and the present moment as well, 
prove that it cannot, then we should make it as 
merciful as possible, and fight it in a way that will 
cause as little sacrifice of life as possible. 

In estimating the cost of war in human lives, we 
cannot count values that may be placed upon them 
by sentiments of humanity, but only such values 
as, when destroyed, make the losing nation eco- ^ 
nomically so much the poorer. 

[92] 



i 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

According to I. S. Bloch, a new-born child of 
the farming class has a value of twenty-five dol- 
lars. At five years of age, he has a value of two 
hundred and fifty dollars ; at ten years of age, he 
is worth about five hundred dollars ; at fifteen, he 
is worth almost a thousand dollars ; and at twenty, 
he is worth a little more than a thousand dollars. 
His maximum value is at twenty, and he begins 
to depreciate in value as he grows older, because 
of his shortened days of service. 

Therefore, the average economic value of sol- 
diers may, according to Mr. Bloch, be put at a 
thousand dollars. 

According to David Starr Jordan, it costs about 
fifteen thousand dollars for each soldier killed in 
battle, so that, according to these two eminent 
peace advocates and peace propagandists, when 
the Germans slay, say, a thousand of the Allies, 
the loss to the Allies is the value of the thousand 
men, namely, a million dollars, and as it costs the 
Germans fifteen times as much to kill them as they 
are worth, the loss to the Germans is fifteen mil- 
lion dollars ; so that the actual German loss is fif- 
teen times as great as that of the Allies. But 
as the Allies are killing a good many Germans, 
they are generously sharing with the Germans a 
fair proportion of the cost of the war. 

These figures are not far out of the way. 
The fact is that, in modern warfare, the actual 
loss of life for the numbers engaged is cor- 

[93] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

respondingly less than it used to be, while the 
cost is correspondingly greater. In modern war- 
fare, the loss of money is far greater than the 
loss of life. It is more the dollar than blood, that 
is now shed. 

In ancient times, when men fought hand to hand 
in compact form, with short-sword, spear, and 
battle-axe, they used often to slay half the num- 
bers engaged — easily ten times as many for the 
numbers engaged as are now slain. There are 
more than ten million Allies now under arms 
against more than seven million Germans and 
Austrians. These numbers have not as yet all 
been brought face to face with one another on the 
line of battle, owing to modern methods of war- 
fare; but under old-time methods with old-time 
arms, they would have been at once brought into 
collision in two enormous armies. In ancient 
times, less mobilization could be effected in a year 
than can now be effected in a month, but when the 
collision came, the issue of the war was decided 
on one great field. 

If these great European armies were armed 
with short-swords, spears, and battle-axes, as 
armies used to be, instead of with modern war 
weapons and enginery, they would, during the 
time they have been engaged, very likely have 
slain a third of their number — certainly ten times 
as many in proportion to the numbers engaged 
as have actually been killed in the present war. 

[94] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

Even a tenth of their numbers would be a million 
and a half. 

Never in all history have such vast numbers of 
men been drawn up in line of battle. Never have 
they been so scientifically armed, and, conse- 
quently, never have they, for the numbers en- 
gaged, killed so few. 

Modern machine-guns and quick-firing guns, 
with bullets and shrapnel and canister, are so 
deadly that troops in mass form cannot live for a 
minute in front of them, but as opposing armies 
with modern war machinery line up at the present 
greater tactical distances, and throw out their 
men in long-extended battle-lines, and spread them 
over correspondingly wide areas, the fight be- 
comes one largely of gun against gun, engine 
against engine, with the result that not nearly so 
many lives are lost as there would be if the fight- 
ing were done by hand, and hand to hand, in close 
order. The German siege guns smashed the forts 
of Liege and Namur from a distance of nine 
miles. 

As nations are bound to fight, it is far more 
merciful that they should be armed to the teeth.^ 
but it is vastly more expensive. Can we not af- 
ford, however, to spend dollars instead of men to 
kill our enemies I 

Therefore, even according to the facts and fig- 
ures of those two eminent peace-men, I. S. 
Bloch and Dr. David Starr Jordan, the money loss 

[95] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

today is a concern fifteen times more serious to 
the economic welfare of a nation than is the loss in 
lives. 

It is a very strange paradox indeed that the 
professional peace-propagandists, who claim to be 
actuated mainly by considerations of humanity, 
should advocate disarmament and the inevitable 
reversion to the old and more deadly arms and 
methods of warfare, on account of the greater ex- 
pensiveness of warfare conducted with modern 
scientific arms and methods. 

By doing away with our present highly scientific 
and very expensive war enginery and fighting 
methods, the nations would be able, in a war like 
the present, to kill one another at very much less 
cost. They would then be able to kill ten times 
as many in a given time, while the cost would be 
only a small fraction of the present cost. 

It is a matter of solemn certainty that the quick- 
firing gun is the most beneficent implement of 
mercy that has ever been invented, and every 
peace advocate in the world and every lover of 
his kind should appreciate this fact and use his 
influence in favor of armaments which serve to 
make war expensive, and tend both to prevent 
war, and to save life when war comes. 

Let us for a moment suppose that the great 
European Powers had disarmed fifteen years ago 
when the Czar of Russia broached the subject to 
them. What would have been the result? This 

[96] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

war would have come just the same, and probably 
much sooner ; and it would have been ten-fold more 
bloody, even had the nations flung themselves 
upon one another armed with scythes, carving- 
knives, wood-axes, and common tools of trade, or 
even had they fought, as the simple cave men did, 
with clubs and stones. 

Love of home and country — patriotism — on the 
one hand, and race hatred on the other, are far 
more potent in the human heart than any lately 
created sentiments of international brotherhood 
and humanity. Before this war came, it was a 
common preachment of the peace-men and a com- 
mon belief of the multitude, that many socialists, 
members of brotherhoods of labor and other op- 
ponents of war, would refuse to fight, and if 
drafted would shoot down their officers from the 
rear. But nothing of this kind has happened. 
"When this war broke out, socialist, labor unionist, 
and preacher of international brotherhood joined 
with their militant fellow-countrymen in singing 
the ^^Marseillaise,'' ^'Wacht am Ehein,'' ''Bri- 
tannia Eules the Waves,'' and rushed to arms and 
to war, and are now fighting like demons, shoulder 
to shoulder with the imperialist and the war lord. 

In order that we may be made as right-seeking 
as possible, God has ordained the trials of strife 
and hardship which force us to get busy, and 
thereby develop our usefulness. Human duty may 
be expressed in the following terms: The best 

[97] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

preparation for the attainment of success in life 
is the acquisition of a thorough realization of the 
fact that no one deserves more from the world 
than he earns out of it, and that the bigness or 
littleness of any one is exactly proportionate to 
his use to the world, and that, consequently, actual 
self-service is impossible except indirectly through 
world-service. 

Whatever may be done in the service of an indi- 
vidual to help him attain success and find com- 
fort, or to lessen his discomfort, may not be best 
for the general good, because individual welfare 
must, in the end of things, be subservient to the 
general welfare. 

It sometimes becomes perfectly right and proper 
that individual life should be sacrificed for na- 
tional life, but never national life for individual 
life. The nation has, however, its obligations to 
the individual, and obligations as exacting as 
those of the individual to the nation. If a nation 
does not exercise due and reasonable diligence 
to safeguard its people against war and does not 
provide itself with the necessary trained men and 
machinery to forefend war, then the obligation 
of the individual to the nation in the event of war 
is just so much lessened. The leading of an un- 
trained and ill-armed, improvised citizen soldiery 
against an army of trained veterans, with all of 
the equipment of modern warfare, results in use- 
less, senseless slaughter. 

[98] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

If a nation does not prepare itself to demand 
and enforce respectful treatment of its citizens 
in foreign countries, then its citizens should have 
no patriotism, for they are like men and women 
without a country. But when a nation is armed 
with guns, and armed with the purpose to defend 
its citizens, wherever they may be, to the last 
man and last pinch of gunpow^der, and is so ade- 
quately prepared with labor-saving, life-saving 
machinery that in the event of war the minimum 
of human sacrifice shall be made, then it is the 
duty of every man to place himself unreservedly 
at the service of his country. 

If the people of this country could be roused to 
a realization of what invasion means, there would 
be no longer heard any senseless prating about 
an unarmed peace, but the whole people would 
rise in their might and demand adequate arma- 
ments and an adequate army and navy, and the 
senseless peace fanatics would be burned in e^gj. 

We have for half a century listened with con- 
fidence to the assurance that we are so splendidly 
isolated by broad seas that we need not fear in- 
vasion. 

Our inadequate Navy is today the only bulwark 
against invasion, for modern means of transpor- 
tation over seas have reduced the ocean to a ferry. 

Both England and Germany have navies su- 
perior to our own, and would be able to destroy 
our Navy, and land on our unfortified shores a 

[99] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

hundred thousand men in less than two weeks — 
half the time that would be required for us to 
mobilize our little Army of thirty thousand men. 

Japan is not so far away as she used to be. She 
has been rapidly narrowing the Pacific, and she 
could land a quarter of a million men on the Pa- 
cific coast in less than a month, much quicker 
than we could get our thirty thousand regulars 
there to receive them. 

We are no longer splendidly isolated from other 
nations. We are isolated only from ourselves, 
and we are truly splendidly isolated in that par- 
ticular. 

The other nations are isolated only by such 
time and difficulty as they would have to encounter 
in order to bring veteran troops to our shores, 
with all the necessary equipment of war, and, as 
we have seen, this is an isolation of less than a 
month, while we are isolated by unpreparedness 
by at least fifty months, for it would take more 
than four years, if we should start now, to raise, 
equip, and train an army that would compare in 
numbers, equipment, and training with the army 
that any one of the Great Powers could place upon 
our shores in a month. 

In a recent interview, Secretary of War Gar- 
rison said: 

''// tomorrow any first-class military power 
should attack the United States in force and 

[100] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

should succeed in getting her warships and sol- 
dier-laden transports past our fleet, landed out of 
range of our coast defenses, once fairly ashore she 
could pulverize our small regular army and punish 
us to a humiliatiyig degree, if not actually make us 
sue for peace, before we could raise and train a 
volunteer army adequate to cope with the in- 
vaders. In other words, at present our navy is 
our only considerable bulwark against invasion. 
Even such part of our militia as we could depend 
on and the available regular army would make an 
extremely small force, our army being in size only 
a local police force, well trained and highly effi- 
cient indeed, but in numbers little more than twice 
the size of the police force of New York City — 
that is, not large enough for our great country 
even as a mere police force. 



yy 



Let US, for argument's sake, assume for a mo- 
ment that we were to be invaded with an army of 
only a hundred thousand men, trained, equipped, 
and supplied with the supreme adequacy with 
which the troops of the other Great Powers are 
trained, equipped, and supplied. 

The enemy would line up in a battle-front three 
times as long as our little thirty thousand could 
be stretched with equal powers of concentration, 
or if our thirty thousand were to be stretched 
out a hundred miles we should be at least 
three times as weak as the enemy at any point 

[101] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

of attack, even were our thirty thousand to be 
as well equipped and as well supplied as the 
troops of the enemy. But we should be with- 
out the requisite field artillery, and the artillery 
that we should have would be without the 
requisite training. We should be without the 
needed cavalry, and our cavalry would be without 
proper organization and experience. We should 
be without ammunition trains, and very short of 
ammunition. Our troops, hustled together, and 
rushed to the front for the first time to face a 
real enemy, would be unprepared to behave like 
an army, and, what is very important, they would 
have no hope of success. 

Despair would be in the heart of every man. 
Both officers and men would know that there were 
no ready resources, no reserves and reserve sup- 
plies behind them, and no adequate arrangements 
for providing any. Every man of the thirty thou- 
sand would know that he was being sacrificed in 
atonement for national blundering, just as at 
Balaklava the noble Six Hundred were by a blun- 
der sacrificed in the charge of the Light Brigade. 

PREPONDERAlSrCE OF GuN-FiRE 

It is strange how little the law of battles is 
understood by most persons. Most persons 
imagine that in a fight between our Navy and an- 
other navy, or between our Army and the army of 

[102] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

an enemy, although the enemy might have the 
advantage in the number of ships and in the size 
and range of guns, the advantage would be im- 
material and one which might be balanced by the 
superiority of our personnel, and that, although 
we might be somewhat short of the required field 
batteries and ammunition, the superior fighting 
qualities of our men would render them more than 
a match for the enemy, even in the face of superior 
gun-fire. 

It does not appear to have been fully recognized 
even by the advocates of better equipment for the 
American Army, how vitally important is length 
of range in field artillery. 

In the Boer War, the British field batteries 
found themselves at great disadvantage in face 
of the longer French guns of the Boer bat- 
teries. 

In the present European war, the great long- 
range German howitzers, pummeling forts into 
heaps of scrap, and their plunging fire blowing 
great craters along the battle-front, spread terror 
in the ranks of the Allies, similar to the terror 
that the Eomans felt when the fierce Gothic giants 
slid down the Alps into the vineyards of Italy. 
But the long-range French field-artillery soon re- 
stored confidence, for it was found that the French 
field batteries could outrange the German bat- 
teries. 

We need field-guns of longer range. We need 

[103] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

field-guns that shall not only equal in range those 
now in use in Europe, but also we need guns of 
even longer range. We should have field-guns of 
a range sufficient to command sky-line from op- 
posing sky-line. Here is an opportunity for the 
vaunted American genius to assert itself. 

It is necessary that the facts as they actually 
are should be recognized and appreciated. 

Victory in a naval battle today depends abso- 
lutely upon the weight of the broadsides and the 
speed of the vessels, which enables them to ma- 
noeuvre and choose positions of advantage with 
respect to the enemy ; while victory or defeat in a 
land fight depends upon the weight of gun-fire, 
which can be directed against the positions of an 
enemy. 

The actual number of infantry engaged is of 
secondary importance. It is artillery that is of 
supreme importance. Should we be involved, our 
field artillery must pave the way with the dead 
bodies of the enemy before our infantry can ad- 
vance. Also, the batteries of the enemy must be 
silenced by our own batteries before they, with 
their gun-fire, shall be able to silence ours. 
Other things being equal, therefore, it is the num- 
ber of field batteries that, more than anything else, 
turns the tide of battle for defeat or victory. If 
the enemy's guns have a longer range than ours, 
then they will be able to silence our batteries while 
far beyond the range of our guns. They will be 

[104] 



< 

S 





^ 


t 


g 


^ \ 


<a 


«^ 




*^ •» 


s 


•*r J 




§ 




"^ 1 




tZ J^Py 


» M 


^ 


i v 


i ^ 


^ 


s 


13 





o 

S 

c 

8 

a> 

E 

z 

o 

> 

o 
X. 




WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

able to destroy our artillery, while we should not 
be able even to injure theirs. 

Let us picture a land figM: 

Our aerial scouts inform us that the enemy is 
approaching, and that they have already mounted 
their long-range field artillery on a convenient 
ridge ; also that they have placed their big howit- 
zers on an adjoining lowland under the conceal- 
ment of a wood, and that this formation is re- 
peated in similar units from ridge to ridge and 
hill to hill over a front a hundred miles in length. 

The enemy has also dug long lines of trenches 
far in advance of their artillery. The enemy ^s 
position is well beyond the range of our artillery. 
We are unable to reach the enemy's position with 
our guns, while the enemy, being provided with 
guns of much longer range, is able to storm our 
position along our entire front, and to throw 
shrapnel shell into the trenches filled with our 
men, which stretch along the lowland in front of 
our positions. We try to dig additional trenches 
to advance our front, but the men sent to do the 
work are very quickly killed by the shrapnel fire 
of the enemy. 

We see with our field-glasses that the enemy has 
sent out detachments to advance the line of their 
trenches. We fire at them, and find that our 
shrapnel falls far short. The enemy, seeing this, 
advances and digs trenches close up to the limit of 
the range of our guns. 

[105] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

All at once, the enemy opens fire with shrapnel 
upon our entire line of trenches, and with shrap- 
nel and howitzers upon all our fortified positions. 
We return the fire, but without any effect; the 
range of our guns being too short to reach the 
enemy. Many of our guns are quickly silenced. 
The perfect hurricane of shrapnel thrown upon 
our trenches has killed large numbers of our men 
and confounded the remainder. 

The infantry of the enemy now advances pell- 
mell over the intervening space, still under cover 
of artillery fire. Field batteries of the enemy 
also advance rapidly and take up new positions. 

Finding our positions untenable, our army re- 
treats precipitately, taking with it a few remain- 
ing guns, and our men re-form their batteries on 
commanding positions to cover our retreat, but 
they are soon dislodged by the long-range guns 
of the enemy. Finally, our army takes up its 
stand far in the rear, forming a new battle-front, 
which has been previously fortified. 

The enemy advances, repeats the previous tac- 
tics, forming a long battle-front on commanding 
positions just beyond the range of our guns, and 
again proceeds to dislodge us, and drive us back 
by their long-range gun-fire. 

Our loss in men and guns has been enormous. 
The enemy, on the contrary, has lost no guns, and 
but few men. 

It will be seen that the enemy can very easily 

[106] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

proceed in this manner into the interior, and con- 
quer the whole country without suffering very 
much discomfiture, unless we have guns of as long 
or longer range than the enemy has, and as many 
of them, also as many skilled troops to operate 
them. 

Most persons imagine that infantry, armed with 
the modern long-range magazine-rifles, can go 
into battle, and shoot large numbers of an enemy, 
and that, if the infantry is numerous and daring 
enough and brave enough, they will be able to whip 
the enemy without the support of field artillery. 
This is a grave error. An army of a million men, 
consisting entirely of infantry, armed with mod- 
ern shoulder-arms, would be completely over- 
matched and easily defeated by an army of 25,000 
men amply equipped with modem field artillery. 
The infantry would be wholly unable to get within 
musket-range, because they would all be destroyed 
by the shrapnel of the enemy before they could 
get near enough to fire a single effective shot. 

A hundred thousand English, Germans, or 
Japanese, equipped with the longest and best 
modern field artillery, with plenty of ammunition 
and supply trains, air-scouts and engineer corps, 
could, in our present defenseless condition, march 
through this country as Xenophon's ten thousand 
marched through ancient Persia. They could cut 
their way through all opposition that we could 
offer. We have neither the infantry, nor the ar- 

[107] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

tillery, nor the cavalry, to oppose them, and the 
artillery we have is of so much shorter range that 
at no time could we get near enough to the enemy 
to reach him with our guns. 

If war comes between us and any of the Great 
Powers, the splendid young men of the coun- 
try — husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, lovers — 
will have to go to the front and meet the invaders. 

If they go forward equipped with the neces- 
sary arms, ammunition, and enginery of war, and 
are well trained and well officered, then they will 
be able not only to hold their own against the in- 
vaders, with comparatively little loss of life, but 
also to repel and drive out the enemy and save our 
land from spoliation and our homes from despoli- 
ation. 

If, on the other hand, they are to be sent for- 
ward without the necessary arms, ammunition, 
and enginery, and without training, and incom- 
petently or incompletely officered, as the pacifist 
propagandists and other sentimentalists are ad- 
vising and planning that they be sent, then they 
will go just like lambs to the slaughter. 

The zone of fire in front of the enemy ^s trenches 
will be heaped high, acres wide and miles long, 
with their dead bodies; and writhing, groaning, 
shrieking, agonized forms of the wounded will 
crawl over and under the dead toward the hope 
of safety and mercy. 

Into such a hell are the hyper-sentimental peace 

[ 108] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

sophists planning to send those you most love, 
those to whom you most cling, and on whom you 
most depend ; and you are aiding and abetting the 
crime if you believe the words of these false rea- 
soners. 

Every word you aim against necessary pre- 
paredness for war may, in the final reckoning, aim 
a gun at the heart of him whom you love more 
than all the world ; and you might be able to say 
a word that would protect him with a gun. 

That human attribute which, more than any 
other, distinguishes man from the brute, is imag- 
ination. Also, it is the attribute which, more than 
any other, differentiates the normal man from the 
criminal. If, in imagination, a would-be mur- 
derer could foresee the distorted face and the 
despairing agony of his dying victim, and could 
foresee the tear-streaming eyes of those mourning 
for him, he would, unless brazened against every 
feeling of pity, stay his hand. If those who, 
through their ignorance, false belief, or hypocrisy 
and desire for publicity, are planning to sacrifice 
the unimaginable thousands of our best young 
men in the bloody shambles of war, as an offering 
to false faith, vanity, or hypocrisy, could only 
foresee in imagination the long lines of manhood 
swept and annihilated by the withering fire of 
an enemy, without guns to return that fire, then 
possibly they might submerge personal limelight- 
lust for considerations of mercy. 

[109] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

If you believe them, and speak as they are 
speaking, and advise as they are advising, against 
adequate national defense, you should at once 
change your belief, and use your voice and every 
resource at your command in future to forefend 
this country and avert the great useless sacrifice. 

Come, young lady reader, let us, in imagination, 
stand together on the firing-line : Those regiments 
lining up are from New York, New Jersey, Con- 
necticut, Massachusetts. They are forming for a 
charge. It is the only way. Those shells, bursting 
among them with such deadly effect, are shrapnel 
from the quick-firing guns of the enemy placed 
just over the crest of yonder distant ridge; and 
those huge plunging projectiles, which throw up 
great inverted cones of earth, with fragments of 
men, are from the enemy's big howitzers, located 
under cover of the wood that fringes the horizon. 

If we only had the necessary quick-firing field- 
guns and shrapnel ammunition, and the necessary 
field howitzers, we might dislodge or silence those 
deadly batteries of the enemy. At any rate, we 
should be able to engage them efficiently and 
cover the charge of our troops. We should also 
be able to storm that line of trenches, to the 
discomfiture of the enemy hidden there in vast 
numbers, and thus to prepare for the onset of 
our men. But we have neither the guns nor the 
ammunition. 

See — the order is given. Onward they go. 

[110] 



WAR METHODS AND MACHINERY 

Watch them, the brave fellows! Why does the 
front line lie down so suddenly, with a few left 
standing? My friend, they are not lying down; 
they are dead. But they are not all killed, a large 
number of them are wounded. They are torn in 
every inconceivable, horrible manner of mutila- 
tion. And look! — the other lines go down, too; 
some lying still, others writhing on the ground. 
One of those poor devils, with hands clenched in 
the grass and gnawing the earth, is your brother ! 

See — a huge howitzer shell explodes right 
among them. The young man whom you were to 
marry on his return from the war was standing on 
the verge of the crater when the explosion came, 
and he is now lying there, with both eyes blown 
out by the awful blast and hanging on his cheeks. 
There are visions of you in the blasted eyes, and 
there are thoughts of you in the dazed brain, and 
his dying breath is a whisper of your name. 

Will you continue to think thoughts and speak 
words which may drive him to that awful death? 

The picture is horrible. That of the blasted 
eyes is revolting. True, and for this reason it 
may not come within the artistic, as outlined 
in the philosophy of Longinus; but it is not my 
purpose here to be artistic. My very purpose is 
to visualize the horrible, because the only way 
for the people of this country to prevent this on- 
coming horror is to make the necessary military 
preparations for national defense. 

[Ill] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

But, young lady, this is not the end of the 
dreadful picture: Let us look into your home. 
The awful news comes — our men are beaten with 
enormous slaughter; father, brother, sweetheart 
— all your home's defenders — are dead. The in- 
vaders who have murdered them are in the street 
outside. There comes a summons at the door. A 
certain number of the enemy have been billeted to 
your house, and you must play the genial hostess. 
Though they get drunk, and ill-treat you beyond 
the power of words to tell, there remains no 
remedy. Your dear ones, who were your natural 
defenders, have been sacrificed on the altar of 
false faith in defenselessness as a deterrent of 
war. 



[112] 



CHAPTER V 
THE NEEDS OF OUR ARMY 

Letter feom General Leonard Wood 

Governor's Island, N. Y., 
February 6th, 1915. 
Dear Mr, Maxim: 

I am very glad indeed to learn of your interest 
in military preparedness. The subject is one 
which is of vital importance to the American peo- 
ple. We do not want to establish militarism in 
this country in the sense of creating a privileged 
military class, dominating the civil element, re- 
ceiving especial recognition, and exercising per- 
haps an undue influence upon the administration 
of national affairs, but we do want to builds up in 
every boy a realization of the fact that he is an 
integral part of the nation, and that he has a mili- 
tary as well as a civic responsibility. All this can 
he done without creating a spirit of militarism or 
of aggressiveness. Take Switzerland as an ex- 
ample. Here we have a country where every boy 
and young man who is physically sound receives, 
largely as a part of his school work, military 
training to the extent necessary to make him an 
efficient soldier. This is a policy which ought to 

[ 113 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

he followed with our youth. It is not enough that 
a man should he willing to he a soldier. He should 
also he so prepared as to he an efficient one. This 
can only he accomplished through training. 
Sivitzerland and Australia have shown that this 
can he done through the puhlic-school system, and 
with a resulting vast improvement in public 
morals and the quality of citizenship. The crim- 
inal rate in Switzerland is only a small fraction 
of ours. Respect for the law and constituted au- 
thorities, the flag of the country, and a high sense 
of patriotism are evident on all sides, and yet 
there is practically no standing army. 

We have here a patriotic people, living not with 
arms in their hands, or with a large standing 
army, hut trained, equipped, and ready to effi- 
ciently and promptly defend the rights of their 
country. This I helieve is the ideal we should 
strive for. We need a standing army hig enough 
for the peace work of the day, i.e., the garrisoning 
of our foreign possessions, the Philippines, the 
Hawaiian Islands, Panama, the little garrisons in 
Porto Rico and Alaska, and a force in the con- 
tinental United States adequate for the peace 
needs of the nation. 

Vie must never again trust ourselves to the 
emergencies of a great war without proper prep- 
aration. If we do we shall meet with an over- 
whelming disaster. Preparedness is really an in- 
surance for peace, and not an influence for war. 

[114] 




Photo of }'a%nt%ng by Sargent 



o(^<^ 




^^W^f'^7^*-*n 



THE NEEDS OF OUR ARMY 

To send our men untrained into luar to meet 
equally good men, well trained and disciplined, 
was once described hy Light Horse Harry Lee, of 
Revolutionary fame, as murder. Perhaps this is 
too strong, but it certainly is a gross disregard of 
human life. 

Very truly yours, 

Leonard Wood. 
Mb. Hudson Maxim, 

698 St. Mark's Ave., 
Brooklyn, N. Y, 

The facts given in this chapter have been 
gathered from many authoritative sources. It 
would be very comforting if these facts were 
known only to the American people, but un- 
fortunately they are already known to the military 
authorities of all the other nations. Other na- 
tions are all very well aware of our unprepared- 
ness; therefore, I am giving out no national se- 
crets. English, German, French, Russian, and 
Japanese navy and military experts know exactly 
the men and equipment we possess. 

It is the American people only who are not 
aware of the truth about our unpreparedness. 
This ignorance is largely due to the beguilers who 
have set the face of a great mass of our people 
against armaments, and have made them turn deaf 
ears to every voice that tries to rouse them to 
their danger. 

[115] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

Our ship of state has been drifting down stream 
like a raft. The only reason the raft has not been 
wrecked lies in the fact that we have been fortu- 
nate enough to have a pretty clear stream to our- 
selves ail the while, with no breakers and no 
cataracts in sight. But there are breakers and 
rapids and cataracts down stream, and we are at 
last nearing them rapidly. 

Even as long ago as 1880, General Emory Up- 
ton spoke thus prophetically: 

*^In time of war the civilian as much as the sol- 
dier is responsible for defeat and disaster. Bat- 
tles are not lost alone on the field; they may he 
lost beneath the Dome of the Capitol^ they may be 
lost in the Cabinet^ or they may be lost in the 
private office of the Secretary of War. Wherever 
they may he lost, it is the people who suffer and 
the soldiers who die, with the knowledge and the 
conviction that our military policy is a crime 
against life, a crime against property, and a crime 
against liberty. The author has availed himself 
of his privilege as a citizen to expose to our people 
a system ivhich, if not abandoned, may sooner or 
later prove fatal. The time when some one should 
do this has arrived." 

In 1912, Admiral Kane said: *^They told me in 
London, ^You are living in a fooPs paradise. 

[116] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR ARMY 

Some day you will wake up with a fight on your 
hands, and you won^t be ready for it' '' 

Not only must the United States solve the great 
problem of shaping a military policy that will 
enable us to establish an adequate force for na- 
tional defense in time of war, to build up and man 
our Navy, construct and man coast fortifications, 
and enlist, arm, and train an adequate army, but 
also there must be faced the far more difficult 
problem of enlisting the co-operation of the Amer- 
ican people in the enterprise. 

The fathers of our country, believing that a 
large standing Army would be a menace to the lib- 
erties of the people, ordained that our Army, in 
time of peace, should not exceed twenty-five thou- 
sand. Since then, Congress has several times 
raised the limit until we now may have an Army, 
in time of peace, of not more than a hundred thou- 
sand men. As a matter of fact, we have a regular 
Army of 93,016, both staff and line. 

As this Army has to be spread out over our en- 
tire continental and outlying possessions, the sight 
of an American soldier of our regular Army is 
about as rare an occurrence as the sight of a sea- 
serpent. 

Within the actual limits of our forty-eight 
states we have but 48,428 regular troops. Of these 
17,947 must be kept in our coast fortificatioUtS, 
even as a pretense of garrisoning them. This 
leaves only 30,481 mobile troops, including en- 

[117] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

gineers, cavalry, infantry, and field artillery. We 
have a militia on paper numbering 127,000, men 
and officers. Only 60,000 of these, however, are in 
readiness for service. 

Therefore, we have in the United States to-day 
a regular Army of 48,000, and 60,000 militia ready 
for duty, or 108,000 men and officers altogether. 
In time of war not a man of our militia could well 
be spared for military service to repel an invader, 
for in such troublesome times they would all be 
needed for police duty to maintain order and obe- 
dience throughout the country. 

General Wood recently told us that it would 
take a month to mobilize even our little Army of 
thirty thousand men. 

Out of the 127,000 officers and men of the militia 
which we have on paper, only 60,000 being avail- 
able, and only 30,000 of our regulars being avail- 
able, we could place on the firing-line only 90,000 
men and officers, and there would be no re- 
serves. 

When Napoleon, the world's greatest military 
captain, went into battle, he always kept a large 
and powerful force in reserve, to give confidence 
to those on the firing-line, and to save the day in 
case of a reverse, and possibly to turn defeat into 
victory, and at the worst to cover a retreat, and 
save the army from rout. This same need exists 
with us for a large national reserve of well-armed 
and well-trained men, ready to be called from 

[118] 



E 



JO 

D 

a 

(D 

CC 
w 

<D 

(0 

+-• 

CO 

■D 
0) 



c 


<2> 


3 


<t5 




<2> 


H- 


"-N 


o 


»t 




~Q 


c 


'o 


<D 


'^ 


^ 






** 


■a 


^ 


^-» 




CO 


^ 


i:z 


••<> 



c 
LU 

"D 
C 
CD 

CO 

s_ 

0) 

o 

it 
O 



V3 



•«i 















f? 






4 

I 






^ 
<> 



i| 



e5 



o 
E 

3 
2 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR ARMY, 

civil life to refill the depleted ranks of an army 
at the front. 

Our regular Army is, in men and guns, but a 
mere nucleus of what we ought to have, and of 
what we must have to save this country from 
defeat and abject humiliation should war come. 

Not only this — the artillery we have is without 
adequate field organization. It would take at least 
four months to train additional personnel in order 
to get our field artillery ready for duty. It would 
take us four times as long, therefore, to get our 
own artillery on the firing-line, ready for battle, 
on either our eastern or western seaboard, as it 
would for an enemy to get its artillery there. 

It is we ourselves who are handicapped by isola- 
tion, not the enemy — isolation not of space, but of 
time. 

If it be true that God fights on the side that is 
the best equipped with artillery, God could not be 
expected to fight on the side of our militia. 

Our militia at the present time has only sixty- 
five organized batteries, with four guns each. It 
is absolutely imperative that we should have 
seventy-nine additional batteries, with six guns 
each, even moderately to complete our equipment 
in field artillery. Think of it! Our militia has 
less than half the number of field batteries neces- 
sary for battle. 

It is also worthy of mention that these batteries 
are without ammunition trains, and without of- 

[ 119 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

ficers or men for the new organization, and we 
have not the necessary horses to draw the bat- 
teries we already have. 

Our militia is entirely without siege artillery, 
while neither our militia nor our regular Army is 
equipped with field mortars or howitzers of the 
larger calibers now used abroad, which have been 
so terribly effective in the present war. 

Not only are foreign nations far ahead of us in 
actual existing war strength in men and gans, but 
also they have each an efficient system whereby 
their present equipment may be rapidly expanded. 
We have no such system. 

Our Fatal, Isolation 

Never yet have we perceived the important 
truth that in this age of war machinery, requiring 
months and years to create, isolation by time is 
an equivalent to isolation by distance. Our own 
isolation in the matter of the time required for us 
to raise and train armies and equip them with 
shoulder-rifles, automatic guns, quick-firing can- 
non, siege howitzers, ammunition supply trains, 
and to build, man, and equip with guns, battle- 
ships, battle-cruisers, torpedo-boat destroyers, 
submarines, and, no less important, to equip flying 
machines with trained aviators, would be a far 
more serious handicap to us than our isolation by 
the seas would be to our enemies. 

[120] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR ARMY 

The Scientific American, February 6, 1915, 
says: 

'^We could not supply the men for the necessary 
field-artillery organization for four months, or 
the ammunition trains and ammunition for a year 
and a half, and not a gun is yet made or appro- 
priated for, for the volunteers. The militia is 
short in cavalry and requires over fifty additional 
troops of cavalry to provide the divisional cavalry 
alone. There is an alarming absence of auxiliary 
troops. Most of the militia cavalry is poorly 
mounted, much of it practically without mounts, 
and, with the exception of a few special organiza- 
tions, has had little or no field training. It needs 
months of hard work in camp. Engineers, signal 
and medical troops of the militia are as a rule 
insufficient in number, deficient in organization, 
equipment, and reserve supplies, and very many 
of them are far below their prescribed strength 
and without available personnel to fill them up. 



ft 



The following is quoted from a statement made 
before a Congressional committee in 1912, by Gen- 
eral William Crozier, Chief of Ordnance of the 
United States Army, and one of the ablest officers 
that the Army has ever had : 

*'So far as transporting troops is concerned, 
the sea as a highway is not an obstacle, but a 

1 121 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

facility. It is very much easier to get any number 
of troops across the Atlantic Ocean than it would 
be to get the same number over anything like the 
same distance on land. Marine transportation is 
the very best hind you can have; the easiest, least 
expensive, and most expeditious, if you are con- 
sidering large bodies of troops and large amounts 
of material. The fuel charge for transportation 
in good tramp steamers does not amount to one 
two-hundred-and- fiftieth part of a cent per ton 
per mile. The sea is a splendid means of trans- 
portation. The distance is only ten days for a 
vessel of very moderate speed, and you can carry 
a thousand men on a vessel of 3,000 tons' capacity 
without any trouble at all. There are any number 
of vessels to be had, and there is no resistance 
on this side against a well-equipped force of a 
hundred thousand men,*' 

Shortage op Officers 

We have in our regular Army to-day about 
4,572 officers. The number of English officers 
killed, wounded, and missing during the first six 
months of the European war was, in round num- 
bers, 5,000, a little more than the total number of 
our officers. 

It has been estimated by the most able authori- 
ties, among them the editor of the Scientific Amer- 
ican, whom? I quote, that : ** In case of invasion we 

[122] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR ARMY 

would need 380,000 stationary volunteer coast- 
guard troops to guard the approaches to our cities 
and coast-defense works." We should also re- 
quire an additional 500,000 men at the very least. 
To be rational, we should have a mobile army of 
a million men. In this enormous country a stand- 
ing army of a million men would, comparatively 
speaking, be small. It would still be one-fifth the 
size of the German army, one-tenth the size of the 
Eussian army, and it would be less than the avail- 
able Japanese army. Surely this great Kepublic 
can afford to maintain a standing army equal to 
that of Japan ! 

The number of officers we have at the present 
time would, of course, be practically lost in our 
proposed mobile army of a million men. Eadical 
and immediate measures should at once be taken 
to increase tenfold the officer-making capacity of 
West Point. Also, any private in the ranks 
should, by meritorious conduct manifesting mili- 
tary promise, be open to promotion to West Point, 
to complete his education there. This would be a 
tremendous stimulus and encouragement to the 
rank and file. 

The burglar who has begun to plan to rob a 
house and has commenced inspection of the lo- 
cality to keep tab on the movement of the police 
in the vicinity, has already declared war on that 
house. The bank-raider who has begun to spy on 
the cashier of a bank and the nocturnal habits of 

[123] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

the people of the town, and has equipped himself 
with the kit of tools and the explosives to breach 
the vault where the cash lies, has already declared 
war on that bank. 

In this same sense, and to this same extent, 
there is more than one nation that has already- 
declared war on the United States. Their spies 
have been working among us for years, and they 
have the kit of tools and the explosives all ready 
to breach our Navy and our coast fortifications. 

Our lack of field-guns for our artillery and our 
lack of ammunition are very clearly put in the 
Scientific American of February 13, 1915 : 

*'We have in the hands of troops, or stored, 634 
completed guns. We have under manufacture or 
contract, 226. These guns will probably not be 
completed for at least a year and a half. In 
other words, the number of completed guns is a 
little less than half the total number deemed neces- 
sary for the field force of 500,000 men, and pro- 
vides no guns whatever for the coastguard troops 
or new volunteer organizations which will he re- 
quired in addition to the 500,000 field force. Of 
ammunition, we have, made and under contract, 
approximately 30 per cent, for the entire project 
of guns (1,292), Half of this is under manufacture 
or contract, so that there is not more than 15 per 
cent, actually completed. For the guns on hand 
and under manufacture we have, of ammunition 

[124] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR ARMZ 

on hand and under manufacture, about 41 per 
cent.; actually on hand, approximately, 20.5 per 
cent. For the guns actually made (634) we have 
27 per cent, of the ammunition necessary. For 
the guns now in the hands of the regular army and 
militia we have about 44 per cent, of the ammuni- 
tion necessary. It should be remembered, how- 
ever, that the guns in the hands of the regular 
army and militia at the present time are less than 
half the guns required for these forces when prop- 
erly equipped with guns, even under our scheme 
for the assignment of guns and ammunition, which 
is in both instances far lower than in any of the 
great armies today, and the present war has indi- 
cated, in the case of one great power at least, that 
the consumption of ammunition has exceeded 
twice their maximum estimates, and that the pro- 
portion of artillery will, in future, be increased. 

*'At the rate of even last year's appropriations, 
which were the largest made for field-artillery 
guns and ammunition, it will taJce between eight 
and nine years to complete our present modest 
estimate for guns and ammunition, and the neces- 
sary equipment in the way of ammunition trains 
and other accessories." 

We are told in the Eeport of the Chief of Ord- 
nance, 1914, that no permanent ammunition trains 
have been provided. 

The following figures give the personnel of our 

[125] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

regular Army, and of our militia. They are taken 
from the Report of Major-General Wotherspoon, 
Chief of Staff of the United States Army, for 
the period from April 22, 1914, to November 14, 
1914: 

Actual strength of the United States Army, ex- 
clusive of Philippine scouts : 

Officers 4,572 

Men 88,444 

Authorized strength: 

Officers 4,726 

Men 95,977 

Hence, shortage : 

Officers 154 

Men 7,533 

Of total enlisted strength, 22.50 per cent., in- 
cluding recruits and recruiting parties, belong to 
the non-combatant and non-effective class, and are 
not with the colors; 19.45 per cent, are in that 
branch whose special function is coast-defense. 

Mobile army (engineers, cavalry, field artillery, 
and infantry) is 58.05 per cent, of actual strength, 
and comprises : 

Officers 2,738 

Men 51,344 

[126] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR ARMY. 

Omitting cooks, musicians, scouts, etc., mobile 
strength is : 

Officers 2,738 

Men 45,968 



Mobile strength in continental United States : 
Enlisted men 30,481 

Ammunition: 

We need 11,790,850 artillery rounds. 

"We have on hand 
and being manu- 
factured 580,000 '' '' 

We need 646,000,000 rifle cartridges. 

We have on hand 
andbeing manu- 
factured 241,000,000 '' 

We need a supply of 9|, 12^, and 16^ howitzers. 

We have only thirty-two 6-inch howitzers and 
smaller pieces, none larger. 

Militia: 

Total enlisted men, 119,087, of which only 52.56 
per cent, have had any rifle practice, and only 
33.43 per cent, have qualified as second-class 
marksmen or better. 

[127] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

From the Eeport of the Chief of Staff for the 
year ending June 30, 1914, we learn that out of 
our 120,000 militiamen, 23,000 failed to present 
themselves for the annual inspection; 31,000 ab- 
sented themselves from the annual encampment; 
and 44,000 never appeared on the rifle range from 
one year's end to the other. 

Congressman Gardner tells us, further, that 
60 per cent, of our militia were unable, in 1913, 
to qualify even as third-class marksmen, and that 
half of that 60 per cent. (30 per cent.) did not 
even try to qualify. 

For years prior to the breaking out of the great 
European conflict, Lord Eoberts pleaded with 
the English people, and prayed that they might 
hear his appeal to prepare for war with Germany. 
Like a voice crying in the wilderness, he called the 
British nation to arms. His voice was not heeded, 
and the nation did not arm. 

The voice of Lord Eoberts sounded harshly on 
the ears of sensitive English officialdom. Lord 
Haldane, to emphasize his attitude, disbanded 
80,000 British troops at the very moment when 
England should have enlisted and begun to train 
800,000. Also, he threatened to abolish Lord Eob- 
erts' pension if he did not keep quiet. The grand 
old soldier was spared by a kind Providence to 
stand on the fliring-line when the great war came 
which he had foreseen, and there he saw; thou- 

[128] 



THE NEEDS OF OUR ARMY 

sands of Ms country's dead who had fallen from 
failure to regard his timely warning. 

We have a Lord Roherts, too. There is a grand 
old American soldier who for years has appealed 
to us to fly to arms with all speed in preparation 
against war. He has even greater reason than 
Lord Eoberts had, because our danger is many 
times greater than was England's danger. We 
are practically defenseless, while England was 
not. 

I quote the following from the American Lord 
Eoberts, General Leonard Wood : 

'' . . . We have neither guns nor ammunition 
sufflcient to give any general commanding an 
army in the field any assurance of success if at- 
tached hy an army of equal size which is supplied 
with its proper quota of field-artillery, 

^^The fire of modern field-artillery is so deadly 
that troops cannot advance over terrain swept by 
these guns without prohibitive losses. It is there- 
fore necessary to neutralize the fire of hostile guns 
before our troops can advance, and the only way 
to neutralize the fire of this hostile field-artillery 
is by field-artillery guns, for troops armed with 
the small arms are as effectual against this fire 
until they arrive at about 2,000 yards from it as 
though they were armed with knives. This field- 
artillery material and ammunition cannot be 
quickly obtained. In fact, the Chief of Ordnance 

[129] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

estimates that almost one year would he required 
to supply the field-artillery guns needed with one 
field army of a little less than 70,000 men. No war 
within the past 45 years has lasted for one year, 
^0 that after war is declared it would probably be 
over before we could manufacture an appreciable 
number of guns; and the same applies to ammuni- 
tion, 

*^The Ordnance Department states that by run- 
ning night and day with three shifts Frankford 
Arsenal could turn out about 1,600 rounds of am- 
munition per day, and that if private manufac- 
turers were given orders to run under war condi- 
tions they could begin deliveries of ammunition in 
from three to four months, and after getting 
under way could turn out about 100,000 or 
200,000 rounds per month for two or three months, 
and after a total time of six months the produc- 
tion would perhaps equal 250,000 rounds per 
month. The best estimates indicate that at the 
end of the first six months not to exceed 350,000 
rounds could be procured from all sources, includ- 
ing the Government plant. After this six months 
there would be no particular difficulty in securing 
ammunition as rapidly as might he needed, 

". . , It is my belief that . . . unless private 
manufacturers are now encouraged to manufac- 
ture ammunition for our guns after war is de- 
clared, they will not he in any condition to do so 

[130] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR ARMY 

until after the war is finished, and the supply of 
ammunition during the war will he limited to what 
the arsenals can turn out. At present this is 
about 1,600 rounds per day, running three shifts, 
and this ammunition, under ordinary battle condi- 
tions, could he fired hy eight guns in one day of 
battle. If guns are not supplied on the battlefield 
with the ammunition which they can be reasonably 
expected to use, they are not efficient, and when 
a gun has exhausted the ammunition supplied it 
becomes as perfectly useless as junJc; in fact, it is 
worse than junk, for it must be protected by other 
troops, 

*^In the Russo-Japanese War the Russians ex- 
pended during the war, exclusive of the action 
around Port Arthur, 954,000 rounds, 

''At Mukden in nine days they expended 250,000 
rounds. 

''One battery of eight guns at Mukden fired 
11,159 rounds, or 1,395 rounds per gun, 

"At Liaoyang eight Russian guns fired in three 
hours 2,500 rounds, or 312 per gun, 

"During August 30 and 31 the First and Third 
Siberians, with 16 batteries of 8 guns each, fired 
108,000 rounds, or 844 rounds per gun, 

"At Schaho, in a four-days' fight, the artillery 
of the First Infantry Division — 48 guns — fired 602 
rounds per gun, 

"At this same battle in 45 minutes, 20 minutes 
of which were not occupied by firing, 42 guns fired 

[131] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

6,000 rounds, or 190 rounds per gun in 25 minutes 
of actual firing, 

''The War Department believes, after extended 
study, that in case of war with a first-class power 
an army of 500,000 men will he needed to give this 
country any chance of success against invasion, 
and that this force will he needed at once. To 
make it efficient it must he given its proper quota 
of field-artillery. To do this this artillery must 
he on hand, for it cannot he supplied after war is 
started, A municipality might as well talk about 
buying its fire-hose after the conflagration has 
started. A fire department without its proper 
equipment is worthless, irrespective of the num- 
ber of men it has; and so would he your armies, 
unless you provide in peace the material which will 
make them effective in war.*' — Statement of facts 
by Major-General Leonard Wood, Hearings on 
Fortifications Bill, Dec. 9, 1913. 

Is Congress to Blame? 

The blame for our undefended condition is gen* 
erally attributed to Congress. It is true enough 
that the main blame rests with Congress, but it 
must be remembered also that Congress represents 
the will of the people. 

Every Congressman goes to Washington in the 
interest of his constituents. He goes there to 
dicker for them and to swap votes with other Con- 

[132] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR ARMY, 

gressmen in exchanging Congressional concession 
for Congressional concession. His constituents 
want a post-office in their district, or a river deep- 
ened, or widened, or want a navy yard in their 
state, and he is ready to vote for similar conces- 
sions to all other Congressmen who will vote for 
the concessions his constituents require. Every 
Congressman is mindful of the fact, and every 
time he returns home he is reminded of the fact 
that he has not been sent to Congress for his 
health, but for the health of his constituents, and 
if he hopes to be returned, he must see to it that 
he gets what they have sent him after. 

They have not sent him there to support an ap- 
propriation bill for a larger army or a larger 
navy. The people are imbued with the belief that 
the country as a whole is big enough and pros- 
perous enough to be safe. They know little or 
nothing, and care less, about national defenses. 
No calamity has ever come upon us for lack of 
defenses. Why should they worry? Also, they 
have been assured from the pulpit and the Chau- 
tauqua and by circulars sent out by the peace so- 
cieties that we not only do not need more defenses, 
but, on the contrary, we do not need those we 
have ; and they are asked to write personal letters 
to their Congressmen urging them to vote against 
any appropriations to increase our national de- 
fenses. 

I am not arguing for a large standing army, 

[133 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

but merely for an adequate army — ^an army big 
enough to intercept an invading army that might 
be landed on our shores in the event of our Navy 
being destroyed or evaded. 

The American people are imbued with the idea 
that a large standing army is a menace to liberty. 
Whatever justification there may be for this atti- 
tude, it is certain that, if we are to yield to this 
point of view, and get along with a comparatively 
small effective army, it is absolutely indispensable 
that we should have a navy certainly as powerful 
as any in the world, with the single possible ex- 
ception of that of England. All arguments that 
may be made against a large standing army be- 
come arguments in favor of a very large navy. 

In view of the comparative weakness of our 
present Navy, we need an effective army of at 
least a million men. If, however, our Navy were 
to be brought to first rank and the Swiss system 
of military training in public schools were to be 
adopted, we could get along with a much smaller 
army. By the adoption of such a system, we 
should soon have a very large trained reserve 
force in civil life, which could be drawn upon in 
case of need. Assuming the adequacy of our Navy 
and coast fortifications. General Wood believes 
that, if the Swiss system of military training in 
public schools were to be adopted, we could get 
along very well with a standing army of from 
200,000 to 225,000 men. 

[134] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR ARMY 

A navy, however large, could not, by any possi- 
ble stretch of the imagination, be termed a menace 
to onr liberties, and, as ex-Secretary Meyer has 
said, we are rich enough to match dollars for na- 
tional defense with any other nation in the world.' 

It is common belief that military training and 
service in preparation for national defense menace 
democratic institutions. 

In the days of her greatest virility and military 
prowess, Rome was a republic. But we must not 
conclude, because a country is governed by a con- 
gress and a president elected by the people, that 
all its institutions are more free or less autocratic 
than the institutions of a limited monarchy, or 
even an absolute monarchy. 

We, in the United States, often pass laws that 
are so arbitrary, unprecedented, unwarranted, and 
confiscatory, as to make absolutism wince. The 
cities of Germany are governed so wisely and so 
well that could we have that system transplanted 
here, it would be almost worth our while to invite 
German conquest of the country. 

No man's patriotism rises higher than his real- 
ization of the need that his country has for him. 
None of us likes our taxes any too well. Never- 
theless, they bring home to us a better realization 
of the interdependence of the government and the 
individual. 

We love those for whom we make sacrifices, and 
those to whom we give favors. Benjamin Frank- 

[135] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

lin, desiring the favorable regard of a prominent ^' 
person, made it opportune for that eminent per- 
son to do Franklin a favor. 

Conscription, like that enforced in Germany, 
makes good citizens. It implants in them a sense 
of duty and obligation to the government, and 
creates a greater respect for ruling power and for 
law and order. 

In this country, the ideas of the average individ- 
ual concerning his obligations to the government 
and the government's obligations to him are vague 
and crude to the last degree. Conscription would 
largely remedy this by teaching duty to the gov- 
ernment. 

The government has exactly the same right to 
levy on the individual for military service as it 
has to tax him for anything else. Just as the gov- 
ernment has the right to tax the individual for 
financial support of the government, so it has the 
right to tax the individual for military support of 
the government. Conscription makes the govern- 
ment and the individual partners for the common 
welfare. Few persons in this country consider 
themselves partners of the government. 

In ancient Sparta, all individuals were the prop- 
erty of the government; all children were owned 
by the state. Consequently, the people owned the 
state, and the state owned the people. It is proper 
that the state and the individual should own each 
other, insomuch as their interests are mutual, 

[136] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR ARMY. 

just the same as husband and wife own each 
other. 

Perhaps the best system of preparing the youth 
and young men of a country for military service 
is that practised in Switzerland. Switzerland is 
a typical democracy, and yet no country in the 
world has a more universal and efficient system 
of military training for its youth and young men. 

After the conclusion of the war of 1870, Ger- 
many, guided by the iron will of Bismarck, di- 
vulged to Switzerland that the mailed fist had an 
itching palm for Swiss territory. Immediately an 
army of a hundred thousand Swiss mobilized on 
the frontier. They were the best-armed, the best- 
trained, and altogether the most efficient soldiers 
in Europe. Every man of them could shoot to 
kill. They were the flower of the mountains. Bis- 
marck concluded that the game was not worth the 
candle. If Switzerland had not been armed to the 
teeth and ready, that country to-day would be a 
part of Germany. 

The Swiss have not the remotest idea of making 
an aggressive move on any neighboring country, 
but they hold themselves in perfect readiness to 
see to it that no other nation can find it profitable 
to make an aggressive move on Switzerland. 

Switzerland makes her military training a part 
of her school system. The chubby, rosy-cheeked 
little Swiss boys are taught to play soldier with 
wooden imitation guns, and as they grow, the 

[137] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

training later becomes more comprehensive, more 
exacting, more scientific, until, finally, the young 
men find real guns in their hands, find themselves 
commanded by, and receiving instructions from, 
real officers, and they are taught to shoot. When 
their school training is over, their military train- 
ing and term of military service also are over. 
They are ready for civil life, but, too, they are 
ready at any moment for the call of their country 
from civil life to shoulder rifle and knapsack and 
go to the front. 

This is the system that we should adopt in our 
country. It places no burden upon the schoolboy 
or the young man ; on the contrary, it is a source 
of keen enjoyment, like any other manly game. 
The beneficial psychological effect is simple : The 
youth is taught obedience, his powers of percep- 
tion are quickened, his alertness increased, his 
physique greatly strengthened, his health bene- 
fited, and his personal habits governed by laws of 
temperance and hygiene, with the result that his 
efficiency for usefulness in all the business and 
affairs of civil life afterward is greatly enhanced. 
Thus, in Switzerland, the earning power of the 
population is increased out of all proportion to the 
cost for the training and maintenance of the entire 
army. 

Mr. Richard Stockton, Jr., in his book, *' Peace 
Insurance,'' ably expresses the value of military 
training, as follows : 

[138] 



THE NEEDS OF OUR ARMY 

^^ Military training has an important value en- 
tirely apart from its actual military value. This 
is conclusively proven in the numerous military 
schools of the United States, The majority of 
these schools disclaim any attempt to train sol- 
diers, hut include military training merely to 
maJce better citizens. They find that the man 
trained militarily learns obedience, promptness, 
cleanliness, orderliness, coolness, and secures that 
priceless asset known as executive ability — the 
ability to make others obey. Such schools form a 
stronger character and make better men, 

'*If this is true in a military school, it must be 
equally so with similar training received else- 
where. If thousands of parents pay from $500 to 
$1,500 per year to secure this training for their 
boys, surely there is some gain to the nation in 
the men who receive this training in the army. 
The fact is too well attested by educators through- 
out the world to admit of serious questioning/' 

It is possible that German militarism, by becom- 
ing absolutism, has grown from servant to master 
in Germany. However this may be, one thing is 
certain, that German progress in the industrial 
arts and sciences, in municipal and general gov- 
ernment economics, has made the German people 
more eflficient and potential per capita than the 
people of any other country on earth. Conse- 
quently, we must admit either that the Germans- 

[139] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

are inherently snperior intellectually to the people 
of other nations, or that they have acquired their 
present economic superiority by reason of some 
procedure which they have followed, and with 
which other nations have not kept pace. 

The natural assumption is that militarism is 
responsible for the German culture of efficiency. 
It is not an unreasonable conclusion, in view of the 
evidence, that German militarism is the greatest 
school of economics that the world has ever seen* 



[140] 



CHAPTER VI 
THE NEEDS OF OUR NAVl? 

" Look at the accomplished rise of Japan ; think of the possible 
national awakening of China; and then judge of the vast prob- 
lems of the Pacific. Only those Powers who have great navies 
will be listened to with respect when the future of the Pacific 
comes to be solved." 

Kaiser Wilhelm II. 

A FAMOUS English pMlosopher once took 
Ms son to the House of Parliament, and 
said to him, **Now, my boy, I want you to 
witness with what ignorance and irrationality we 
are governed." 

Were that same philosopher and his son to wit- 
ness some of our American legislative proceed- 
ings, he would find still greater ignorance and 
inconsistency for the edification of his son. 

The fathers of our country thought it necessary 
to the security of our government that all naval 
and military authority should be subordinate to 
the civil authority. Congress is able absolutely 
to dominate the Army and Navy. The Secretary 
of War and the Secretary of the Navy are gen- 
erally civilian politicians. It certainly does seem 
inconsistent to take a man out of civil life, who, 
very likely, may be wholly ignorant of naval and 

[141] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

military matters, and, through preconceived preju- 
dice, unalterably opposed to actual naval and 
military needs, and place him in a position seri- 
ously to interfere with the work of the officers 
who have been educated at government expense 
at West Point and Annapolis. 

The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary 
of the Navy ought not to be changed, regardless 
of merit, or the lack of it, every time we change 
a President. Those important offices should be 
lifted out of politics. A man's political qualifica- 
tions for an office usually depend not a whit upon 
his being suited to the office by his ability to per- 
form the duties of the office, but simply upon what 
he has done for the party to earn the appoint- 
ment. 

There is a huge difference between political 
merit and official merit. Political merit relates 
entirely to party service, and may constitute de- 
merit when squared with the generally accepted 
moral code and standard of human behavior. A 
Secretary of the Army or a Secretary of the Navy 
may, by previous training, ignorance, effeminacy, 
or, even worse, by pacific bias, be entirely un- 
suited to such a position and entirely incapable of 
broadly perceiving militant duty. 

Such changing of our war and naval secretaries 
is as harmful as it would be to change the head 
of a hospital every month, with the same disre- 
gard of qualifications derived from previous edu- 

[142] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVY 

cation, training, and experience. Evidently, it 
would be disastrous to place in supreme command 
of a hospital first an allopath, then change him 
a month later for a homeopath, replace the homeo- 
path with an osteopath, followed by a Christian 
Science healer, then a spiritualistic clairvoyant, 
finally a Hindoo swami. Such a rotation of hos- 
pital heads would hit the patients pretty hard. 

When, however, we get a Secretary of the Navy 
of the caliber of Theodore Eoosevelt, or of ex- 
Secretary Meyer, then the Navy profits by having 
a civilian for its head, because such men as these, 
who are natural judges and masters of men, are 
able to make use of the greater knowledge and 
experience of those under them, and they have the 
additional advantage of being en rapport with 
the civilian's point of view, while from the fact 
that they are civilians, they escape the unreason- 
ing prejudice of the anti-militarists, who believe 
that all naval and military men are actuated by 
ulterior motives and self-interest when trying 
to get Congressional support for the Army and 
Navy. 

A man who, through study and experience, has 
become a specialist in a certain line of work, is 
better qualified to do work in that line and to 
know its needs than is a person who has had no 
such knowledge and no such experience. In legal 
matters, we go to a lawyer to get advice, and we 
generally take it, and pay for it. There is an 

[143] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

old saw that lie who acts as his own lawyer has 
a fool for a client. 

The American Congress is composed almost en- 
tirely of civilians, who are qualified neither by 
study nor experience to pass judgment on the 
needs of our Army and Navy. They are as un- 
able correctly to diagnose the condition of our 
Navy and to prescribe rational remedies as a 
pastry cook would be to diagnose and operate for 
appendicitis, or to prescribe for the treatment of 
pneumonia. 

It is hard to understand how there could be 
any one in the country unable to perceive this 
patent truth — that a person educated and trained 
to a thing all his life ought to know more about 
that thing than a person who has had no such 
training and no such experience. 

Yet the officers of the Army and Navy are not 
permitted to give public expression to their views 
on naval and military needs. 

I quote from the New York Times the following 
remarks on a significant incident : 

*' Washington, Feb, 17, 1915, — Secretary Gar- 
rison to-day instructed Brigadier-General Scott, 
chief of staff of the army, to call upon Captain 
William Mitchell, of the general staff, to explain 
published remarks attributed to him on the un- 
preparedness of the United States for ivar. 

^'Captain Mitchell was quoted as having said 

[144] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVZ 

that Ht would take the United States about thre6 
years to put an army of one million trained men 
in the field, and in that time an enemy could take 
and hold our American seaboards.' 

'* Secretary Garrison said he considered such 
utterances, if made in public at present, inju- 
dicious and improper," 

When a hunter goes out with a gun after game, 
he does not consider it good sport to shoot a four- 
footed beast or flying fowl without first giving the 
victim a chance for its life, and an opportunity 
to give the alarm to its fellows ; yet our army and 
navy men, under the present gag rule, are not 
given a sportsman's chance to escape being shot, 
through our national unpreparedness, or even to 
give a cry of warning to their fellows. Even the 
murderer is given a chance to present his case 
before being executed, but the American soldier 
is not afforded any such opportunity. 

Our Congress allows itself to be dominated by 
impossible pacific ideas, and consequently neglects 
to take the necessary sane precautions to safe- 
guard the country against war, or even to avert 
disaster in case of war, and yet, when there arises 
a casus belli. Congress feels no moral compunction 
against declaring war and sending its ill-equipped, 
thin-ranked, ill-provided Army to the front to face 
inescapable death. 

If the troops run out of ammunition on the 

[145] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

firing-line, they cannot retire, but must keep their 
line unbroken, even though they are all killed. 

At the battle of Spottsylvania Court House, in 
the Civil War, the regiment in which my brother 
Leander served was caught in exactly this posi- 
tion. They had been drawn up to defend a bag- 
gage train. They held their places, and loaded 
and fired until their ammunition was exhausted; 
and still they h^ld their places under a rain of 
bullets from the enemy, until reenforcements 
came. Of that company, which went into the fight 
a hundred strong, eighty-four were killed, among 
them my brother. 

In war, the lives of a few hundred, or even a 
few thousand soldiers, count for nothing, if the 
position they are holding has a greater strategic 
value than their lives. When food runs short, it 
sometimes becomes strategically a good bargain 
to sacrifice the lives of a thousand men in a forage 
raid to bring in a thousand sheep. In such a case, 
a sheep is worth more than a man, because the 
sheep can be eaten, and the man cannot. 

There are some things in this world that we 
are able to know are absolutely wrong. Of these, 
nothing is surer than that it is wrong to forbid 
our army and navy officers the public expression 
of their opinions, which would give the country 
the benefit of their knowledge and experience. 
Not only this, but it is a great injustice to the 
officers of the Army and the Navy, for, if war 

[146] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVZ 

comes, it is they who will have to stand on the 
firing-line — not the individuals of civilian of- 
ficialdom. 

When, in the near future, our fleet is sent to 
intercept the on-coming superior fleet of an enemy, 
those officers who must stand on the bridge and 
at their posts on the decks — and go down with 
their ships — are the very men now gagged by 
civilian red tape. 

If they could speak, and tell you and me and 
all of us the truth and the naked truth, then very 
likely their lives could be saved, and the sacrifice 
of their ships and their crews avoided. 

If the actual truth about our defenselessness 
were generally appreciated, our whole people, as 
Antony said of the stones of Rome, ^' would rise 
and mutiny" against the legislative and bureau- 
cratic officialdom and the fanatical peace propa- 
ganda that are teaching the people ignorance and 
folly while muting the tongues of those who 
should speak. 

A nation is but a composite individual. Just 
as the male head of the family, being the natural 
protector of the family, has, in all ages, needed 
strong arms for the defense of the family, so, in 
all ages, have nations needed strong arms for 
national defense. These are the army and the 
navy. When army and navy are weak, then the 
nation, regardless of other elements of prowess, is 
correspondingly weak, and, more than that, the 

[ 147 1 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

nation tliat is not safeguarded by a strong army 
and a strong navy is a poor nation, regardless of 
its resources and visible wealth. For tbe value 
of wealth and resources is very largely dependent 
upon their security — upon the power of the army 
and navy to defend or guarantee the title to them. 

That man is not a rich man, the title to whose 
property is questionable and likely at any time 
successfully to be disputed. The value of wealth 
depends entirely upon the ability of its possessor 
to control and utilize it, which includes the ability 
to defend his title to it. 

The same thing holds true with a nation. The 
value of its wealth depends entirely upon its 
abihty to control and utilize it, subject absolutely 
to ability to defend it. 

You and I, reader, may count ourselves worth 
a certain sum. But if our property is not so safe- 
guarded as to ensure our continued possession and 
benefit of it, and to ensure to our children and 
our children's children the possession and benefit 
of it, then we are by no means so rich as we 
should be were our title guaranteed by adequate 
national defenses. 

We are at once the richest country in the world, 
and, in proportion to our wealth, the poorest ; for, 
in proportion to our wealth, we are the most de- 
fenseless. By consequence, we are without guar- 
anty of title to our property, and we may at any 
time be robbed of it. 

[ 148 ] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVZ 

An adequate army and an adequate navy are 
the only possible means by which American titles 
to property can be guaranteed. 

Just as it is worth all it costs, and more, for 
owners of real estate to have the title to their 
property guaranteed by a title-guarantee com- 
pany, and just as the property is by such guaranty 
enhanced in value more than the cost of the guar- 
anty, so the guaranty of title to American prop- 
erty dependent upon an adequate army and navy 
is worth far more than the entire cost of them, by 
virtue of enhanced values. 

When a nation, like the United States, has be- 
come a World Power, with outlying possessions 
in distant seas and within the spheres of influence 
of other powerful nations, it assumes obligations 
just in proportion to the hazards involved in the 
maintenance of title. Also, when a nation, like 
the United States, has a world-compassing com- 
merce, its obligations are just as large as its com- 
merce, and its need of a navy adequate to defend 
its commerce is, for that purpose alone, exactly 
as great as its need of the commerce. But, in addi- 
tion to this great need, there is the still greater 
need of a navy of such magnitude and potentiality 
as effectually to safeguard the country against 
invasion. 

Although we should have an army of sufficient 
size and possessed of so efficient equipment as ulti- 
mately to repel invasion, still the cost in life and 

[149] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

treasure for repulsion and expulsion would exceed 
many times the cost of the warships and naval 
equipment necessary to prevent invasion. 

The American people are not all agreed that we 
should have a navy. There is a very large per- 
centage of the population who believe that we 
ought not to have any at all. But there is one 
ground, I think, for common agreement : Admiral 
Austin M. Knight, President of the Naval War 
College, one of the best-informed and ablest of- 
ficers in the Navy, as well as one of the most 
scholarly men in the country, says : 

'*If we are to have a navy it should he as efft- 
dent as it can possibly he made. And everybody 
who knows anything about the Navy knows that 
this is not its present condition. 



y> 



I shall quote further from a recent speech of 
Admiral Knight ; 



t( 



There is much about the Navy which is splen- 
didly efflcient. But as a whole it is far less effi- 
cient than it can and ought to he. Our ships are 
fine. Our officers are capable, industrious, and 
ambitious. Our enlisted men are the equals of 
those in other navies. But efficient ships and of- 
ficers and men do not alone make an efficient 
navy. They must he welded into an efficient whole 
by a unity of organization and administration 

[150] 




Photo by Ernst 




?7/.Ay^ 



THE NEEDS OF OUR NAVY 

and purpose which coordinates their capabilities 
and directs their efforts towards a common end, 
wisely selected and very clearly seen. Here is 
the first point at which we are lacking. We are 
lacking also in that harmonious composition of 
the fleet ivhich is needed to give to every element 
of it the support that it needs from other ele- 
ments, to make up a symmetrical and ivell-hal- 
anced ivhole. And we are lacking to a marked 
degree in absolutely essential facilities for the 
care and preservation of our ships, especially in 
the matter of dry-docks. 

^^ Finally, we are lacking in efficient organiza- 
tion of the personnel. Here, so far as officers are 
concerned, the conditions are altogether deplora- 
ble. In a service like the Navy, where spirit is 
everything, where enthusiasm must be the driv- 
ing power back of every activity, I ask you to pic- 
ture the effect of a condition where a young of- 
ficer, graduating from the Naval Academy full of 
spirit and enthusiasm, finds himself confronted 
with a prospect of promotion to the grade of Lieu- 
tenant at the age of 52 years. 

'^If you ask me who is responsible for these 
conditions, I can only reply that the responsibility 
comes home to nearly all of us. Some of it, I am 
sure, rests ivith me; — much of it, I believe, with 
you. Certainly it cannot be attributed in ex- 
cessive measure to any one administration of the 
Navy Department, for it has existed for half a 

[151] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

century at least. So let us not cloud the issue by 
assuming that it is a new condition, and that all 
administrations up to some recent date have been 
models of ivisdom and efficiency, or that Naval 
Officers themselves have always been ready with 
good advice. Speaking as the representative of 
Naval Officers as a body, I frankly admit that we 
have not always seen clearly what ivas needed, 
and have not always ivorked together even for 
ends ivhich we did see clearly. As for the Secre- 
taries of the Navy, it is not surprising that many 
of them have failed to realize that their first duty 
was to strive, in season and out of season, to pro- 
mote the War efficiency of the Navy as a whole. 
Many of them have not remained in office long 
enough to learn this. Some, perhaps, have real- 
ized it more or less clearly but have not found at 
hand an organization through which they could 
produce results. A few have made material con- 
tributions toward improved conditions. . . . 

^^A large part of the responsibility, especially 
that connected with the small size and the unbal- 
anced composition of the Fleet and the lack of 
dry-docks, rests with Congress, which has always 
approached naval legislation from the wrong side 
so far as efficiency is concerned; — asking, not 
what do ive need for efficiency^ but what can we 
afford to spend for efficiency^ Behind the re- 
sponsibility of Congress lies the responsibility of 
the Country, — and you, gentlemen, represent the 

[152] 



THE NEEDS OF OUR NAVY 

Country — because it has not insisted upon having 
what tvas needed, without reference to cost. It 
may he that this attitude of both Congress and 
the Country is necessary and even inevitable. But 
I am one of those who believe that this great 
Country of ours can afford to have anything in 
the way of national defense which it needs, and I 
assume that all present here to-night agree that 
we need a navy, and if a navy, then an efficient 
one, and that whatever efficiency costs is the 
measure of what we can afford to spend. 

^^What constitutes an adequate Navy for the 
United States^ The answer will depend, of 
course, upon the purpose for which ive assume 
that the Navy is to be used. We are all agreed, I 
presume, that it is not to be used for aggression. 
Is it, then, to be used solely for defense? If we 
answer ^yes,* we ought to do so with a full rec- 
ognition of what we are to defend and also of the 
elementary maxim that the best defense is a 
vigorous offense. In other words, no matter how 
resolute we may be to use our Navy only for re- 
pelling aggression, it does not follow that we 
should plan for meeting the aggressor only at our 
gates. Even if we had no interests outside our 
borders and no responsibilities for the defense of 
our outlying possessions and dependencies, loe 
should still, as reasonable beings not wholly ig- 
norant of history, prepare to project our battle 
line toward the enemy's coasts and to assume a 

[ 153 j 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

course which would throw upon him the burden 
of replying to our initiative. In this sense, then, 
we need a navy for offense; that is to say, for of- 
fensive action with a defensive purpose. In shap- 
ing our plans along these lines, we should not 
overlook the fact that the policy which dictates 
the measure of our defense must take full note of 
the larger national policy which it is to enforce; — 
in relation, for example, to the Monroe Doctrine, 
the Panama Canal, the Philippines, and other 
matters which are at once of national and of in- 
ternational significance,'^ 

If the United States does not need a navy, then 
we should dispose of the fighting ships we have 
and disband the personnel. If, on the other hand, 
we do need a navy, there is one consideration, 
and one consideration alone, that can rightfully 
determine the size and power of that navy — 
namely, its adequacy to serve the purpose for 
which it is intended. 

A fighting ship is built, equipped with arma- 
ment, manned, and coaled for one sole purpose — 
that of adequacy in a fight. Its success or failure 
— in short, its usefulness or uselessness — depends 
entirely upon its fighting adequacy against a pos- 
sible opponent. An ocean-liner is built, manned, 
and coaled to fight tempestuous seas, and safely 
make the voyage ; but unless the ship is built suf- 
ficiently staunch, has sufficiently powerful engines, 

[ 154 ] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVY 

is well manned, and has coal enough for the trip, 
it is in no sense a success, or useful; on the con- 
trary, it is an utter failure and worse than use- 
less. 

The same thing holds true of a navy : Unless it 
can defeat the fleet of an enemy, and return from 
the voyage, it is a failure, and worse than use- 
less. 

A naval disaster in our present condition would 
be likely to be an irreparable calamity, while a 
naval victory might likely win the war. It is for 
this big difference that we need a navy. Conse- 
quently, the entire use of a navy may be summed 
up in the one word, superiority over a possible 
enemy. 

When two men run for a municipal office all the 
votes cast for the loser are of no value to the 
loser, and all campaign funds spent in getting 
them have been wasted; the only votes that are 
of value to the winner are those that constitute 
his majority. Similarly, in a naval battle, it is 
the majority of votes cast by the winning guns 
that secures the victory, for all of the other votes 
cast by the guins are balanced by an equal number 
of votes cast by the guns of the enemy. 

The total value of a navy may be summed up 
in the value of one battleship, wliich gives a con- 
quering preponderance in gun-fire. 

Admiral Kjiight recently said : 

[ 155 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

'^The War College considers that every effort 
of the Fleet, and every effort of the Department 
in connection with the Fleet, should have for its 
sole aim the war efficiency of the Fleet. Every 
effort which does not directly contribute to this 
end is in itself a wasteful expenditure of energy, 
and so far as it is a diversion from this end, is 
distinctly harmful/' 

Among all those who have occupied positions of 
trust and power, and whose business it has been 
to recognize and provide for our naval and mili- 
tary needs, it is remarkable how few have had 
the necessary breadth of view to grasp the 
strategic situation, and perceive its requirements 
without making silly and costly mistakes, like that 
of the construction of our first three battleships, 
the Oregon, the Massachusetts, and the Indiana, 
merely for coast-defense purposes. None of these 
ships was qualified for service in distant waters. 
Then, when the war with Spain came, we held our 
breath while the Oregon rounded the Horn. Think 
of the United States of America being in such 
straits for fighting ships as actually to hang na- 
tional hope on the old Oregon, A single shell 
from one of the huge gums of an up-to-date British 
super-dreadnought has a striking force equal to 
the energy required to lift the old battleship 
Oregon bodily to a height of more than six feet. 

There is no middle course for the United States. 

[156] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVY 

"We must play the game as a World Power, and as 
other nations are playing the game. To get fair 
play we must provide ourselves with the weapons 
with which they are providing themselves. If we 
do not, we shall be brushed aside with a i-uthless 
hand, and shall find our commerce circumscribed 
on every side by inimical spheres of influence — 
dead lines over which we shall not dare to pass. 

It is necessary for us not only to fortify the 
Panama Canal, but also to maintain a navy of 
sufficient prowess to enable us to reach that Canal 
at all times, and under all conditions, for it is in- 
dispensable that we maintain communication with 
our defenses there. 

Should we become involved in war with Eng- 
land or Germany, the navy of either being more 
powerful than ours, we should be immediately iso- 
lated from the Panama Canal zone. Similarly, 
Japan could successfully blockade the Pacific ap- 
proaches to the Canal. 

We have, at enormous expense, cut a great 
waterway through the Isthmus, and established a 
short route between the Atlantic and the Pacific. 
The Canal is our property. Other nations of the 
world may use it. We generously built it for the 
world's welfare. It will, however, be valuable in 
time of war for the passage of our warships; in 
fact, it mil be a vital necessity to us. But our 
ability to use it for that purpose will be entirely 
dependent upon the ability of our Navy to keep 

[157] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

the sea clear of an enemy's ships at either end. 

The war with Spain was very useful, because 
it brought the truth home to us that the command 
of the American seas is absolutely vital to us. 
Immediately following the Spanish War, we rap- 
idly built up our Navy, until it became second only 
to that of England. But we have, of late years, 
been slipping back, until now our Navy occupies 
third place, with a likelihood of soon dropping 
down to fifth place. 

In 1905, England evolved the great modem 
dreadnought, which was as much of a revolution 
over existing types of fighting ships as was Erics- 
son's Monitor over the fighting ships of its time. 
The dreadnought relegated all existing battleships 
to the second line. 

The dreadnought was so much superior in size, 
in speed, in gun-fire, and in all defensive and of- 
fensive qualities, that it took its place at once as 
the indispensable first-line battleship. England, 
Germany, Prance, Japan, each recognizing the tre- 
mendous superiority of the dreadnought, enlarged 
their naval appropriations, and built dread- 
noughts. 

The American Congress, however, failed to rec- 
ognize the serious character of the crisis. It 
failed to appreciate the fact that the dreadnought 
meant a revolution in battleship construction. In- 
stead of naval appropriations being increased ac- 
cording to our needs, they were decreased. As 

[ 158 ] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVY 

a result, there are now two nations at least that 
could whip ns off the seas, while the navies both 
of France and Japan are likely very soon to rank 
above ns. 

All our illusions about our splendid isolation 
would vanish with the destruction of our fleet. A 
European Power could, in less than two weeks, 
land upon our shores an army of from 100,000 to 
200,000 men. Here, the question naturally arises : 
How would they be able to get past our coast 
fortifications! We have spent about $160,000,000 
on our coast fortifications, but they were never 
intended for the protection of our entire coast 
line. They were intended only to defend our im- 
portant cities and harbors and naval bases. They 
actually protect but a very small fraction of our 
many thousand miles of shore. 

As the Scientific American has justly stated, our 
coast fortifications should not be so named; in- 
stead, they should be designated as city-and- 
harbor fortifications. 

It would be quite impracticable adequately to 
defend our long stretch of seaboard by means of 
coast fortifications. The only coast fortifications 
that can effectually serve us are battleships. It 
is absolutely indispensable to our integrity as a 
nation that we have a fleet sufficiently powerful to 
defend our whole coast against invasion. 

These questions present themselves: How are 
we to ascertain what our naval needs are"? How 

[159] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

shall we prepare to meet them? Of whom shall 
we seek guidance ? 

Several years ago the Navy Department organ- 
ized the General Board of the Navy, headed by 
Admiral Dewey. This Board studied our needs 
with great diligence and care, and Congress was 
advised accordingly. 

All the leading navies of the world have a tech- 
nical body corresponding to our General Board, 
but in other countries that body speaks with au- 
thority, while our General Board may only ad- 
vise. Congress pays but little attention to these 
advisers. It is a principle of our government that 
the voice of the greatest number shall rule, and 
the people of this country have come to believe 
that the majority is more likely to be right than 
the minority. Many falsely believe that in the 
matter of wisdom there is safety in mere numbers ; 
that the opinion of a hundred men is of more value 
than the opinion of a single man. 

Multiplying the number of individuals possess- 
ing a limited amount of knowledge and an unlim- 
ited amount of ignorance does not raise the high- 
water mark of their united wisdom. Wisdom 
means intellectual height. Some men are seven 
feet high intellectually, while others are not more 
than a foot high. 

The average of conscientiousness is much higher 
than the average of intelligence. A man's sin- 
cerity cannot be used as a yard-stick for measur- 

[ 160 ] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVY. 

ing his intellectual height. Sincerity and con- 
scientiousness are sister entities, and are largely 
a measure of intellectual bias, whose other name 
is prejudice. 

We may compare the intellectual height of men 
with one another in a manner similar to compar- 
ing their physical height, only there is a much 
greater disparity in the intellectual than there is 
in the physical. If we take a man six feet high, 
and stand another man beside him of equal or 
less height, the height of the two men is no greater 
than that of the first man. If we add a hundred 
men of average height, we shall find that the aver- 
age height of the whole line is considerably less 
than that of the six-footer with whom we started. 

The same thing holds true with the intellectual 
height of men. We may put a man in each chair 
in the House of Representatives and in the 
Senate, and the total height of the voting wisdom 
of the majority will be only the average height of 
that majority, and it will be less than that of one 
man who might be selected for his wisdom from 
their number. 

Any one member of the Greneral Board of the 
United States Navy is likely to know much more 
about the needs of the Navy and what Congress 
should do for the Navy than is known by all mem- 
bers of the House and Senate put together. 

Eepresentative Gardner very possibly knows 
more about our naval and military needs and 

[161] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

what Congress ought to do for the Army and Navy 
than is known by all the other members in Con- 
gress. In fact, he may likely know more aboiit 
the subject and be able to advise the country with 
greater wisdom upon our needs for national de- 
fense than a line of average Congressmen stand- 
ing shoulder to shoulder in a string that would 
girdle the earth. 

Napoleon said, ^*He goes fast who goes alone." 
Always, the great national issues that make his- 
tory have been decided in each case by one man, 
and all great national crises have depended upon 
the decisive action of one man. In recognition of 
this principle, Eome, in times of great peril, chose 
a dictator. 

The Medo-Persian empire was the architecture 
of one man, Cyrus the Great. The Persian 
empire was conquered and destroyed by the 
genius of one man, Alexander the Great. Eome 
was brought to her knees by one man, Hannibal. 
He ultimately failed, and Carthage was de- 
stroyed, because of one man, an eloquent 
enemy of Hannibal, Hanno, at home in Car- 
thage, who was a peace-advocate. Eome was 
saved from destruction at the hands of the 
Teutons and Cimbri solely by the military genius 
of Marius. Caesar walked alone through Gaul, 
sohtary in his height above his whole army; by 
comparison, all men of his age were pygmies. 
Charles Martel alone saved Europe from the 

[ 162 ] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVY 

Moors. Peter the Great, the amazing architect 
of Russia, was impatient of advice and brooked 
no interference Avith his purpose. Cromwell alone 
was the governing brain of England. Frederick 
the Great was great because he played the game 
of war lone-handed. Napoleon Bonaparte was so 
intellectually tall that he towered over Europe like 
a colossus, and he played kings like pawns in the 
game of war. Bismarck played a lone hand in 
the creation of the German empire. During the 
entire Civil War, Abraham Lincoln parried with 
wit the advice of friends. To his enemies, he 
masked with mirth an inscrutable purpose, while 
he sat solemn and solitary at the helm. 

So, always and always, it has been. Great na- 
tional games have been games of solitaire. 

We need a national leader who shall have such 
size and quality of brain, and be possessed of such 
soul, courage, and wisdom as shall qualify him to 
use the power of his high office to the full to help 
save this country from the dire calamity that is 
impending. 

Although the General Board knows a thousand 
times more about our needs and what we ought 
to do to provide for them than is known to the 
entire American Congress, still Congress, dom- 
inated by the pride of ignorance, believes that it 
knows best, oblivious to the fact that the voiced 
ignorance of a thousand men may have less truth 
in it than the voiced wisdom of a single man. 

[163] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

Members of Congress assume the responsibility 
of deciding what the strength of the Navy shall 
be, and what shall be its composition. Congress, 
not the General Board, decides how many battle- 
ships, cruisers, destroyers, and submarines we 
shall have ; how many officers and men they shall 
carry. The result is disastrous, for our Navy is 
inefficient and ill-balanced. It is dangerously weak 
where it should be strongest. 

During the administration of Lord Haldane 
(then Mr. Haldane) the British Admiralty Board 
resigned because four battleships had been cut 
from the estimates for new construction, which 
were set at the minimum of national requirements ; 
and it is due to forcing the matter by this action 
that the British have the four big battle-cruisers, 
of the Queen Elizabeth type, carrying 15-inch 
guns, which throw a shell weighing 1,925 pounds, 
and which out-range all other guns on ships. 

Kobert Blatchford, whom Mr. Winston Church-* 
ill dubbed a ' ' ridiculous Jingo, ' ' said, in a remark* 
able series of articles written before the outbreak 
of the present war for The Daily Mail in the hope 
of arousing the British public to their danger : 

^^But the British people do not helieve it. The 
British people take little interest in foreign af- 
fairs, and less in military matters. The British 
people do not want to bother, they do not want to 
pay, they do not want to fight, and they regard 

[164] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVZ 

as cranks or nuisances all who try to warn them 
of their danger. 

^^The danger is very great, and is very near. 
It is greater and nearer than it was when I began 
to give warning of it, more than five years 
ago. . . . 

'^The people are conceited, self-indidgent, de- 
cadent, and greedy. They want to keep the Em- 
pire without sacrifice or service. They will shout 
for the Empire, hut they will not pay for the Em- 
pire or fight for it. Germany knows this. The 
world knows it. The Cabinet Ministers know it. 
But no Minister dares to say it. We are in sore 
need of a man. . . . 

^^ While the articles have been appearing in The 
Daily Mail / have received letters of strong ap- 
proval from Lord Roberts and Lord Charles 
Beresford, and from many officers of the Army 
and the Navy. 

*^Are all these men ignorant and stupid, and 
are political wisdom and military knowledge con- 
fined in these islands to the lawyer who runs our 
Army, the lawyer who runs our Navy, and the 
simpering nonentities who edit the Nonconform- 
ist organs? 

**The Liberal Government made a fatal blunder 
when they hesitated to lay down the four extra 
dreadnoughts. They were trying to economize. 
They were hoping for a cheaper way out of the 
difficulty. They were waiting for something to 

[165] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

turn up. The Germans knew this, and made a 
tremendous effort to get ahead of us. It is not 
safe to trust the tradition of Micawher against 
the tradition of blood and iron. 

^'Had the British Government y instead of try- 
ing to save a few millions, ashed the nation 
boldly for the full amount required, and set about 
the necessary work in earnest, the Pan-Germans 
might have had an unpleasant time with the Ger- 
man taxpayer. 

*^It is time our Government and people recog- 
nized the facts. Germany has challenged us. If 
we show weakness we are lost. We cannot bluff 
our enemy. We cannot evade him. We cannot 
buy safety for an old song. We can only hold our 
own against so powerful and resolute an antag- 
onist by shoiving an equal power and resolution. 

^^In the crisis to which I have just referred we 
took the weak course when we ought to have taken 
the strong one. Economy at such a time is the 
most profligate extravagance. 

''When the Government held the four dread- 
noughts back, they should have been pushing a 
dozen dreadnoughts forward; when they tried to 
save a few millions they should have laid out fifty 
millions. Instead of reducing the artillery and 
pottering about with a handful of Territorials 
they should have demanded an Army. 

" But the Cabinet were afraid. We want a 
man. . . . 

[166] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVY 

**I do not want war; I want peace. I am not 
an enemy of the Germans, hut a friend. I like 
Germany; but I love England, as a man loves his 
mother, or his wife, or his comrade, or his home, 

^^ And the Empire is in danger; and we are un- 
ready; and we need a man. . . . 

'^If only we can get the British people to un- 
derstand in time.'' 

Now, reader, carefully weigh this wonderfully 
prophetic language, spoken by an Englishman to 
the English people, before the great war came, 
which is now wringing millions upon millions of 
pounds sterling from the English purse, and 
wringing blood from the veins of thousands upon 
thousands of young men gathered from the length 
and breadth of the whole empire, and wringing 
tears from millions of mourning eyes ; let us take 
this powerful appeal of Blatchford to the Eng- 
lish people and conceive it to be my own appeal 
now, to you and the whole American people. We 
are in the same danger that England was, and 
unless we prepare as, England did not prepare we 
shall be wrung even more than England is wrung. 

Our naval officers, who, more than all others, 
know what we should have in kinds of ships, in 
numbers of ships, and in personnel, are ignored. 
It is a case of the blind leading those who see 
clearly. 

After the most careful and thorough investiga- 

[167] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

tion and weighing of our Navy's actual needs, tlie 
General Board of the Navy figures closely, as near 
to the danger point as they dare, in order that 
their recommendations may stand a better chance 
of approval by Congress. But Congress assumes 
that, being naval men, they have an ax to grind 
and are naturally strongly biased in the direction 
of extravagance, and the Board's wise recom- 
mendations are accordingly discounted. 

We have only 33 battleships less than twenty 
years old, eleven of which belong to the second 
line, with four building and authorized, which will 
make 37 in all. The General Board thinks that 
we should have 48 battleships less than twenty 
years old. 

We have but 68 destroyers, while the General 
Board thinks that we should have 192 destroyers. 

The General Board thinks that we could squeeze 
along with a minimum of 71,000 men to man our 
present fleet, without taking into account addi- 
tional trained men needed for signal and tactical 
work on board auxiliary vessels, and without any 
provision for warships now building. As a bare 
fact, we have only 52,300 men. Thus we are short 
18,000 of the men needed to man the fleet we have. 
In addition to this, there is a shortage in sight of 
4,000 men required to man the fighting ships that 
mil go into commission in 1915 and 1916. 

Out naval experts tell Congress that we shall 
need 50,000 more men for the Navy as soon as they 

[168] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVY 

can be enlisted and drilled; but the ears of Con- 
gress are deaf to the appeal. Yet a whisper for 
a new post-office can be heard by a Congressman 
from his home district a thousand miles away. 

We have only 7,700 men in our naval militia. 
We have no naval reserve. 

Congressman Gardner informs us, as a result 
of his investigations, that it would take five years 
to get a reserve of 25,000 sailors. 

Our best-informed naval officers recommend for 
coast defense the immediate construction of a 
hundred submarines of the latest and most suc- 
cessful type. As a matter of fact, this number is 
far too few. We now have but 58 submarines, 
including those built, building, and authorized to 
be built. Many of those we have are obsolete and 
absolutely worthless. 

The following is an extract from a report by 
the General Board of the Navy in 1913, which is 
very enlightening: 

'^Tlie absence of any definite naval policy on 
our part, except in the General Board, and the 
failure of the people, Congress, and the executive 
government to recognize the necessity for such a 
policy, has already placed us in a position of in- 
feriority which may lead to war; and this inferi- 
ority is progressive and will continue to increase 
until the necessity for a definite policy is recog- 
nized and that policy put into operation/' 

[169] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

A fleet, to be effective, must be so constituted, 
organized, and trained as to benefit in the highest 
degree from team work. It must be able, like a 
baseball team, to act with the precision of a 
machine. 

In addition to battleships, a fleet must have an 
appropriate number of battle-cruisers, smaller 
cruisers, transports, scouts, destroyers, subma- 
rines, colliers, tank-ships, supply ships, repair 
ships, mine-laying ships, tenders, and gunboats. 
Hospital ships should not be forgotten. 

Admiral Fiske says : 

'^We have only one mine-layer. We need five 
additional mine-layers. On hoard that one mine- 
layer are only 336 mines. Germany had 20fl00 
mines when the war started/' 

A fleet without fuel-ships is like a fleet without 
stokers. A fleet without scouts is blind. It cannot 
see the enemy's movements, while its own move- 
ments lie under the eyes of the enemy. The 
videttes are called the eyes of an army. Sim- 
ilarly, the scouts of a fleet are the eyes of the 
fleet. A fleet without these eyes, when hunted by 
a fleet that has them, is in the same position as a 
hunted ostrich with its head hidden in the sand. 
Of these fast scouts, with minimum speed of 25-30 
knots an hour, we have only three; Germany has 
14, and Great Britain has 31. 

[170] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVY 

Two fleets maneuvering for attack — one pro- 
vided with scouts and the other without them — 
are relatively in the position of two men, armed 
with revolvers, fighting in a room, one blindfolded 
and the other with eyes uncovered. 

As Admiral Knight has observed, battleships 
alone do not make a fleet, much less a navy. Our 
fleet is greatly weakened by our lack of destroyers. 
A fleet should always be accompanied by a large 
number of these vessels to support the scouts, and 
also to do scout duty themselves. They stiffen 
the screen about the battleships, and, when an 
opening is present, they are ready to dash against 
the enemy. 

In the Civil War and in the Spanish War we 
were able largely to employ improvised merchant 
vessels for fuel-ships and scouts ; for the sole rea- 
son that our enemies were even more miserably 
unprepared than ourselves. Had we, at the time 
of the Spanish War, been called upon to fight a 
really first-class Power, we should have been 
swept off the seas. 

Fuel-ships and scouts cannot be improvised 
under modern conditions. They must be ready be- 
fore war comes. It is just as fallacious to imagine 
that we can strengthen our Navy with improvised 
ships and personnel after war is declared, and get 
it in trim to meet a modern fleet in the pink of 
condition of preparedness, as it would be for an 
invalid cripple to imagine that he could train and 

[171] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

get into condition for a victorious fight with a 
John L. Sullivan after entering the ring. 

Of all arts and sciences, that of war is the most 
highly specialized. The greatest intelligence and 
skill are called into play to produce special tools, 
and to render their use highly efficient. 

The armies and navies of the European nations 
and of Japan are trained, just as college athletes 
are trained for boat-racing, baseball, football, and 
competitive contests of the gymnasium. The per- 
sonnel is kept in the pink of condition for prompt 
and decisive individual effort and also for su- 
preme collective effort in team work. 

A pugilist finds it necessary to train with the 
most complete thoroughness to get himself into 
prime condition for a fight, while his opponent is 
training in the same manner. When they meet, 
it is not the strength, skill, and endurance of the 
normal man that counts in the fight, but it is the 
supernormal manhood that has been added to. the 
normal man. An ordinary untrained citizen, al- 
though he may possess undeveloped resources 
equal to those of the trained pugilist, would have 
no chance whatever in a fight with him. 

Similarly, such an army and a navy as we 
should be able to improvise in time of war would 
have no more chance of success against an army 
and fleet of a European nation or of Japan than 
the average citizen would have with a skilled, 
toughened, and hardened pugilist. 

[ 172 ] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVY 

There is one source of our naval wealmess that 
of itself alone may bring disaster. It is incom- 
prehensible that such a condition should be al- 
lowed to exist. When a fleet goes into distant 
waters, it should have a nearby base. We have 
neither the coaling stations nor the dry-docks and 
harbors of refuge that are absolutely indispensa- 
ble to the fleet of a country with world pre- 
tensions. 

It is absolutely vital that we should be able to 
defend the Panama Canal, but we have no dry- 
docks or efficient repair-shops there, and we have 
none within a thousand miles of there. 

A couple of milhon dollars well spent to remedy 
this defect might, Admiral Knight declares, very 
conceivably double the efficiency of the fleet in a 
critical emergency by making it possible for every 
ship to go out in perfect condition. 

We have capable naval bureaus of Ordnance, 
Construction, and Kepair, and for the direction 
of personnel ; but these bureaus are not responsi- 
ble for the readiness of the fleet for war. Admiral 
Knight suggests a remedy. He says : 

''This is the last and great defect in the ef- 
ficiency of the Navy. How shall it he remedied? 
The anstver is, I thinlc, hy the creation in the Navy 
Department of a 'Division of Strategy and Opera- 
tions' preferably not co-equal tuith the present 
Bureaus but superior to them and standing be- 

[173] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

tiueen them and the Secretary, This arrangement 
would be a recognition of the fact that all the 
activities of the present Bureaus should lead up 
to the Secretary through a channel which coor- 
dinates them all and directs them toward war 
efficiency. 

^^The title proposed for the new office: Di- 
vision OF Strategy and Operations, covers very 
completely the ground that I have in mind. As 
standing for Strategy this Division ivould plan 
what to do; and as standing for Operations, it 
would direct the execution of its plans. It would 
correspond more or less closely with the General 
Staff of the Army and the First Sea Lord of the 
British Admiralty, whose duties are thus defined: 
^^1. Preparation for war: All large ques- 
tions of naval policy and maritime warfare — 
to advise. 2. Fighting and seagoing ef- 
ficiency of the fleet, its organization and mo- 
bilization, including complements of ships as 
affecting total numbers, system of gunnery 
and torpedo exercises of the fleet, and tactical 
employment of air-craft, and all military 
questions connected with the foregoing ; dis- 
tribution and movements of all ships in com- 
mission and in reserve. 3. Superintendence 
of the War Staff and the Hydrographic De- 
partment, 



[174] 



>f 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVY. 

How Money Appropriated for the Navy is 

Wasted 

George von Lengerke Meyer, former Secretary 
of the Navy, has many times in recent years called 
attention to the fact that a large proportion of the 
money appropriated for the upbuilding and up- 
keep of our Navy has been misapplied to the build- 
ing and up-keep of useless navy yards. 

During the first fifteen years of the present cen- 
tury, we spent $1,656,000,000 on our Navy, while 
during the same period Germany spent $1,137,- 
000,000. 

Notwithstanding the fact that daring this period 
Germany spent 31 per cent, less money on her 
navy than we did on ours, she has a more power- 
ful navy than we have. This difference represents 
a sum of more than half a billion of dollars. With 
that amount of money we could have built two 
super-dreadnoughts a year, for the past fifteen 
years, costing $15,000,000 each, with $60,000,000 
to spare for battle-cruisers, destroyers, and 
submarines. In short, had we spent our naval 
appropriations as economically as have the Ger- 
mans during the past fifteen years, w^ might 
have had thirty more battleships than we now 
have, all super-dreadnoughts of the Queen Eliza- 
beth type, the latest and most powerful pattern. 
This number of up-to-date super-dreadnoughts 
would have far more than doubled the battle 

[175] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

strength of our Navy. We should have out- 
classed England in battleship strength. 

The following facts are so pregnant and so im- 
portant and so ably expressed that I can do no 
better than to give them in Mr. Meyer's own 
words : 

'^ Until within a few years no naval appropria- 
tion could pass the Senate which did not meet the 
sanction of both a Northern and Southern Sen- 
ator, each of whom was a member of the Com- 
mittee on Naval Affairs. It is interesting , in con- 
sequence, to analyze some of the appropriations 
between 1895 and 1910. 

^'In 1899 a site was purchased in Frenchman's 
Bay, Maine, at a cost of $24,650 — far above the 
assessed valuation — and later an additional 
amount of $600,000 was expended to obtain there 
an absolutely unnecessary coaling-station, which 
has since been dismantled, as it was practically 
unused. 

*' At the Portsmouth Navy Yard, so called, in 
Kittery, Maine, a dock was built at an expense of 
$1,122,800, and later it was found necessary to 
blast away rock in the channel in order to reach 
the dock, at an additional expense of $745,300. 

^'Between 1895 and 1910 improvements, ma- 
chinery, repairs, and maintenance in the yard \ 
amounted to $10,857,693, although there was a |l 
large navy-yard within seventy miles, 

I 176 ] '' 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVY 

^ ''On the other hand, at Port Royal, South Caro- 
lina, a dock was built at the insistence of the 
Southern Senator, at a cost of $450,000, ivhich 
proved useless, and, although the original cost of 
the site was hut $5,000, it was not abandoned as 
a naval base until $2,275,000 had been expended. 
''Not the least daunted by this extravagant 
waste, the same Senator determined to have a 
share of the naval melon for his State, so, with 
the assistance of the Northern Senator, he ob- 
tained the establishment of another naval station 
at Charleston, South Carolina, in 1901. There 
I was no strategic value thus accomplished, nor 
was it necessary, with the Norfolk Navy-Yard lo- 
I cated at Hampton Roads. The $5,000,000 which 
has been squajidered at Charleston includes a dry- 
dock built for battleships, costing $1,250,000, but 
which experience shows can only be used by tor- 
pedo-boat destroyers and gunboats. The $5,000,- 
000 could have been employed to great advantage 
' at the Norfolk Navy-Yard, where the battleship 
fleet generally assembles. A portion even could 
have been used wisely at Key West, Florida, a 
supplementary base of real strategic value for 
torpedoes and submarines— a protection to the 
Gulf of Mexico and the mouth of the Mississippi 
River, and on account of its geographical situa- 
tion, Key West ivoidd serve as a base of supplies 
to the fleet in the Caribbean Sea. 
" The purpose of the navy -yards is to keep the 

[177] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

fleet in efficient condition. Their location should 
be determined by strategic conditions, their num- 
ber by the actual needs of the fleet. The main- 
tenance of navy-yards which do not contribute to 
battle efficiency is a great source of waste. 

''The United States has over twice as many 
first-class navy-yards as Great Britain, with a 
navy more than double the size of ours, and more 
than three times as many as Germany, whose navy 
is larger than that of the United States. 

''The total cost of navy-yards up to June 30th, 
1910, with land, public works, improvements, ma- 
chinery, and maintenance, including repairs, 
amounts to $320,600,000. 

"Overburdened with a superfluous number of 
navy-yards distributed along the Atlantic coast 
from Maine to Louisiana, in 1910 I recommended 
that Congress give up and dispose of naval sta- 
tions at New Orleans, Pensacola, San Juan, Port 
Royal, New London, Sackett's Harbor (New 
York), Culebra, and Cavite, none of which was a 
first-class station. The average yearly cost of 
maintaining these stations between 1905 and 1910 
was $1,672,675, and very little useful work had 
been performed at any of them. Later, I prac- 
tically closed them, but could not abolish or dis- 
pose of them, no action having been taken by Con- 
gress. Pensacola and New Orleans have since 
been reopened by my successor. 

[178] 



TEE NEEDS OF OUR NAVY 

"The interests of the country and the interests 
of the Navy would he best served by one first-class 
naval base with sufficient anchorage for the entire 
fleet, north of the Delaware, equipped for doclc- 
ing, repairing, etc., and another station of equal 
capacity at Norfolk, in Chesapeake Bay, with 
Guantanamo, Cuba, to serve as the winter-station 
rendezvous. 

*'0n the Pacific coast we are fortunate in hav- 
ing only two naval stations, one at Bremerton, on 
Puget Sound, established in 1891, ivith ample 
depth of water, costing to date about $9,000,000; 
and the other at Mare Island, established in 1850, 
some thirty miles from the harbor of San Fran- 
cisco, with inadequate depth and width of water 
along its ivater-front. The total costs, with main- 
tenance and repairs, have amounted to $35,000,- 
000, and, on account of insufficient depth of water, 
none of the battleships built in the last eight years 
could have been berthed there. . . . 

*^ Building battleships without an adequate 
force of men is equal to wasting money; only ten 
ships of the first line and eleven of the second, 
according to the Navy Department, can be placed 
in full commission for service, due to a shortage 
of men and officers. 

^^To provide a proper complement for all ves- 
sels of the Navy which could still be made useful 
would require an additional force of 18,556 men 
and 933 line officers, according to the testimony 

[179] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

of Admiral Badger before the Naval Committee, 
December 8, 1914, 

^^That we have not been getting proper return 
for money expended in the Navy is not known to 
the majority of our people, nor is it realized to 
what extent political influences have misdirected 
the appropriations during the past twenty-five 
years. The remedy will only come from absolute 
publicity. 

''Let a special committee be appointed to in- 
vestigate the conditions in the Navy, 

''Let a special committee of military experts 
from the Army and Navy be appointed to recom- 
mend ivhat naval stations shall be abolished and 
sold and if any shall be established to take their 
places, 

"Let Congress inaugurate a national council of 
defense made up of members of the Cabinet, 
Senate, and House, with the chiefs of staff from 
the Army and Navy, that more efficient co-opera* 
tion may be obtained between the executive and 
legislative branches of the Government in respect 
to military requirements. 

"Let Congress establish a general staff in the 
Navy,'^ 



[180] 



CHAPTER Vn 
LANaUAGE OF THE BIG GUNS 

IN the present war, the big guns, both on land 
and sea, have told their own story, and they 
have commanded conviction of their useful- 
ness in proportion to the loudness of their voice. 

Following the introduction of armor-plate by 
Ericsson's Monitor and the Merrimac, armor- 
plate was answered by increasing the size of guns 
and projectiles. Brown prismatic powder was de- 
veloped to slow the burning and lessen the initial 
pressure, thereby securing a better maintenance 
of pressure behind the projectile in its passage 
along the bore of the gun. 

Guns weighing more than a hundred tons were 
built in England for the use of brown prismatic 
powder, but it was found that, after firing a few 
rounds, the guns drooped at the muzzle under the 
shock of discharge, and lost their accuracy. 

The invention and development of smokeless 
gunpowder, mainly during the ten years between 
1887 and 1897, resulted in radical improvements in 
guns of all calibers. 

Only about 44 per cent, of the products of com- 
bustion of the old black powder and the brown 

[181] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

prismatic powder were gaseous. The balance, 
about 56 per cent., were solid matter, and pro- 
duced smoke. It will be seen, at a glance, that 
smokeless powder, whose products of combustion 
are entirely gaseous, possesses enormous ballistic 
advantages, quite independent of its smokeless- 
ness. Less than half the products of combustion 
of the old smoke-producing powders being gas- 
eous, much energy was absorbed from the gases, 
to heat and vaporize the solid products constitut- 
ing the smoke. Additional heat was consumed by 
the work of expelling the smoke from the gun. 

The products of combustion of smokeless 
powder are not only practically all gaseous, but 
also they are much hotter than the products of 
combustion of the old, smoky, black powder. 
Owing to this fact, smokeless powder may be con- 
sidered about four times as powerful as the old 
black powder. 

When a projectile is thrown from a gun, al- 
though it is not heated appreciably, yet heat-energy 
represented by its velocity is absorbed from the 
expanding gases of the powder charge. When a 
12-inch projectile weighing a thousand pounds is 
thrown from one of our long naval guns, it has 
a striking energy, fifty feet from the muzzle, of 
about 50,000 foot-tons — that is to say, it strikes 
with a force equal to that of 50,000 tons falling 
from a height of one foot, or one ton falling from 
a height of 50,000 feet. As the 12-inch naval gun 

[ 182 ] 



LANGUAGE OF THE BIG GUNS 

weighs about 50 tons, the energy absorbed from 
the gases in the shape of velocity of the projectile 
is sufficient to lift a thousand 12-inch guns to a 
height of one foot. 

As a projectile weighs half a ton, the force of the 
blow is about the same as though the projectile 
were to be dropped from a height of twenty miles, 
with no deduction for the resistance of the atmos- 
phere. 

When the projectile is stopped, a quantity of heat 
is re-developed exactly equal to that absorbed from 
the powder gases in giving the projectile its high 
velocity; and the quantity of heat absorbed from 
the powder gases in throwing a thousand-pound 
projectile from our big naval guns is sufficient to 
melt 750 pounds of cast iron, which is enough to 
heat the projectile white hot. 

Obviously, when the projectile strikes armor- 
plate, either the plate or the projectile must yield, 
for the reason that the projectile brings to bear 
upon a 12-inch plate an energy sufficient to fuse a 
hole right through it, and this is substantially 
what it does. The hard and toughened steel of the 
plate is heated and softened by the force of im- 
pact, and, although the projectile may be cold after 
it has passed through, it actually does fuse a 
hole through the plate, the metal flowing like wax 
from its path. 

The introduction of smokeless cannon-powder 
^as followed by a recession from guns of great 

[183] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

weight and caliber, to guns of smaller weight and 
smaller caliber, the aim being to make up for the 
greater smashing power of huge projectiles, 
thrown at a lower velocity, with projectiles of 
smaller size, thrown at much greater velocity and 
having a greater power of penetration of armor- 
plate, which was constantly being made thicker 
and tougher and harder in order to resist the im- 
pact of armor-piercing projectiles. 

As armor-plate continued to increase in thick- 
ness and in powers of resistance, guns of bigger 
and bigger caliber had to be made, capable of with- 
standing the enormous pressure necessary to 
throw projectiles of sufficient size and at suffi- 
ciently high velocity to penetrate any armor-plate 
that could be opposed to them. 

With every improvement in armor-plate, the 
gun and the projectile have been improved and 
enlarged, until now no armor-plate carried by any 
ship can withstand the naval guns of largest cali- 
ber. In its race with armor-plate, the gun has 
thus far been the winner. 

The victory of the Monitor over the Merrimac 
at Hampton Eoads, half a century ago, was far 
less decisive than was the victory of armor-plate 
over the gun of that time. 

The whole world well remembers the story of 
how the Monitor arrived in the nick of time, and 
saved the Federal fleet from destruction. But the 
salvation of the Northern fleet was of little ad- 

[184] 



LANGUAGE OF THE BIG GUNS 

vantage, for the advent of the Monitor rendered 
obsolete and useless every warship of every fleet 
in the world. 

Great Britain found herself without a navy. 
There was universal consternation. It was a 
world-wonder that no government had before re- 
sorted to so simple an expedient, and one whose 
utility was so very evident. 

It must be remembered that the guns of that 
period were muzzle-loading smooth-bores, and 
that the round, solid projectiles thrown by them 
were intended merely to knock holes in the sides 
of wooden warships and to pound down the walls 
of brick or stone forts. Bombshells were then 
thin, hollow spheres of cast iron, charged with 
black gunpowder, and they were not intended for 
penetration, their destructiveness depending upon 
the fragments hurled by their explosion, or upon 
their ignition of inflammable material. 

It is a curious phase of human progress that 
what is old and tried is venerated and conserved 
with solicitous regard out of all proportion to 
merit. Innovations must not only have evident 
merit, but their merit must also be so indubitably 
proven by application and use as to replace the 
old and revered, in spite of the opposition of over- 
zealous conservatism. The substitution of the sail 
for the galley-slave was a very slow process, un- 
til it received especial stimulus in the fierce forays 
of the marauding Northmen and the raids of the 

[185] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

Mediterranean corsairs. Similarly, did tlie sail 
slowly give way to steam. 

A modern wooden steam-launch or a forty-foot 
motor-boat, with cedar sides, driven by gasolene- 
engines and armed with a single three-and-a- 
half-inch gun, would be able today to attack and 
destroy the famous Monitor of Ericsson, in spite 
of its armor-plate, for the reason that the launch 
or motor-boat would have vastly greater speed, 
and also for the reason that its gun would have 
vastly greater range, and would be able to pene- 
trate the soft iron armor of the Monitor with pro- 
jectiles charged with a high explosive to explode 
inside. The motor-boat, lying outside the range of 
the huge 11-inch guns of the Monitor, could hold 
a position of perfect safety during the conflict, 
and, by consequence, would need no armored pro- 
tection. 

Thus we see that the sufficiency of armor-plate 
must, other things being equal, inevitably depend 
upon insufficiency in range and penetrating power 
of the gun to which it is opposed. An unarmored 
vessel, with guns capable of penetrating the 
armor-plate of an opponent having shorter-range 
guns, needs only to have superior speed in order 
to choose a position out of range of the armor- 
clad 's guns, and, atmospheric conditions being 
favorable, to destroy it without itself being ex- 
posed to any danger whatsoever. 

But there are other conditions which prevent the 

[186] 



LANGUAGE OF THE BIG GUNS 

gun, however long its range and however great 
its power of penetration, from being a complete 
defense in the absence of armored protection. 
These conditions are — the limit of vision due to 
the rotundity of the earth, even in clear weather, 
the limitation of vision, at much nearer distances, 
in thick or hazy weather, and, of course, the 
greatly increased difficulty of hitting at extreme 
ranges. Also, it is necessary to be able to observe, 
from the fighting-tops, where trial shots strike, in 
order to get the correct range, and lay the guns 
exactly upon the target. 

In the recent North Sea fight, firing began at 
more than 17,000 yards, or about ten miles ; 12-inch 
and 13-inch shells from the British ships struck 
the BluecJier before more than the upper works of 
the Bluecher could be seen from the decks of the 
British ships. Only by the fire-control officers, a 
hundred feet above the decks, could her whole hull 
be seen. When the first huge shells came plunging 
down out of the sky upon the Bluecher, her gun- 
ners could not see the ships from which they came. 

It is true that with much more powerful guns 
than those of her enemy, an unarmored vessel 
would be able to shoot right through any armored 
protection opposed to them. But there is the 
danger that an armored ship of an enemy may 
emerge from the fog or haze, or from out of the 
darkness at night, and then neither speed nor 
weight of gun-fire might save the unarmored ship. 

[187] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

The unarmored vessel would not be able with her 
small guns, if she carried them, materially to in- 
jure her armored enemy, whereas the enemy, with 
its secondary batteries, firing with enormous ra- 
pidity and faster than the speed of the heavier 
guns, would be able to riddle her in a few mo- 
ments. Consequently, it is considered wise to em- 
ploy sufficient armor to afford protection against 
the rapid-fire guns of smaller caliber. Such 
armor also at longer ranges affords considerable 
protection against the big guns, for it must be 
expected that not all projectiles will strike the 
plate at right angles. They strike at all angles, 
and sometimes at very sharp angles, and glance 
off, in which case armor of moderate thickness 
may save a ship by diverting the shots, while, if 
she were wholly unarmored, she might be de- 
stroyed. 

We may then conclude that an ideal fighting 
ship would be one having very great speed, carry- 
ing very large and powerful guns, and protected 
by armor-plate of but moderate thickness. Actu- 
ally, such a ship is the modern battle-cruiser. We 
have as yet not one of these ships in our Navy, 
while the Japanese have two of the most powerful 
in the world, and more building; England has 
eight, and more building ; Germany has four, and 
more building. 

The first improvements following the advent of 
armor-plate were made, as might be supposed, in 

[ 188 ] 




How the Fleet of an Enemy tcith fifteen-inch guns could Bombard and Destroy Forts 
Hancock, Hamilton and Wadsworth. and also all of Brooklyn and part of Manhattan, 
from a position beyond the range of the Guns of those Forts; also showing how, after Fort 
Hancock is destroyed, the Fleet could move yet nearer for the Destruction of Forts Hamil- 
ton and Wadsworth, and still be out of range of those Forts, and finally, after their De- 
struction, how it could Bombard New York, Jersey City and Brooklyn at Short Range. 



LANGUAGE OF THE BIG GUNS 

the gun and in the projectile. The old smooth- 
bore, with spherical projectile, was replaced by 
the breech-loading rifle and the conical projectile 
having a copper driving ring and gas-check, by 
which a projectile possessing enormously greater 
mass for its caliber could be hurled at much higher 
velocity and kept point on. 

Extraordinary improvements have been con- 
tinuously made in armor-plate, to harden and 
toughen it and to give it greater powers of re- 
sistance, while battleships have been made larger 
and larger to support heavier and heavier armor- 
plate. Nevertheless, the first improvement in guns 
and projectiles that followed the advent of the 
armor-clad, gave the gun the lead, and the gun has 
kept the lead ever since. 

Today, the long-range, high-power naval gun, 
charged with smokeless powder, and throwing a 
projectile made of tempered steel inconceivably 
tough and hard, and charged with high explosive, 
is the most powerful dynamic instrument ever pro- 
duced by man. A 12-inch naval gun throws a pro- 
jectile weighing half a ton, at a velocity nearly 
three times the speed of sound. A charge of three 
hundred and seventy-five pounds of smokeless 
powder, strong as dynamite, is employed for the 
projectile 's propulsion. 

It may be safely assumed that at fighting ranges 
the residual velocity of a 12-inch, armor-piercing, 
half-ton projectile, thrown from one of the most 

[189] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

powerful 12-iiicli naval guns, develops heat enough 
upon impact to fuse its way through 12-inch plate. 

When a solid body comes into collision with 
another solid body, the energy of motion is in- 
stantly converted into heat, except such portion 
of it as may be consumed in fragmentation, and 
retained in the motion of the flying pieces. If two 
armor-plates, twelve inches in thickness, could be 
brought together face to face, each with a velocity 
equal to that of a modern 12-inch projectile, the 
energy of the impact would be sufficient to melt 
both plates. 

New suns are created by the occasional col- 
lision of great celestial bodies in their flight 
through space. The heat generated by such col- 
lisions is, however, vastly greater than that de- 
veloped by the collision of a projectile against 
armor-plate, for the reason that the velocity of 
celestial bodies is so much greater, being com- 
monly from thirty-five to fifty miles per second, 
and sometimes as high as two hundred miles per 
second, instead of but three-quarters of a mile per 
second. The heat developed by the collision of 
worlds is sufficient not only to fuse them, but also 
to gasefy them, and reduce them to their ultimate 
elements. All the suns that emblazon the evening 
sky have been created in this manner, and the 
heat generated by their natal impact is sufficient 
to maintain their radiant energy for hundreds of 
millions of years. Planets are born, some of them 

[190] 



LANGUAGE OF THE BIG GUNS 

to become inhabited worlds, finally to grow old and 
die, with the extinguishment of all life upon them, 
while their parent sun is still blazing hot. 

The earth is being constantly bombarded with 
meteorites, usually of very small size. But the 
earth is armor-plated with its envelope of air. 
The impact of meteorites upon this envelope, at 
the enormous speed at which they are traveling 
through space, is fatal to them, and they are 
dashed to pieces and consumed upon it, as though 
it were a solid shield of hardest tempered steel. 
It is seldom, indeed, that a meteorite has suffi- 
cient size and mass to penetrate through the at- 
mosphere to the earth's surface. Were it not for 
the protection offered by the earth's envelope of 
air, every living thing upon its surface would be 
very soon destroyed by the meteoric bombardment 
from the heavens. A minute particle of meteoric 
dust, traveling at celestial velocity, would be more 
deadly than a bullet from a shoulder-rifle. 

When a projectile is fired from a gun, it en- 
counters the same atmospheric resistance, in pro- 
portion to its velocity and mass, as is encountered 
by a meteorite, the resistance increasing in a ratio 
something like the square of the velocity. When a 
battleship fires a 12-inch shot at another war- 
vessel ten miles away, the velocity is greatly re- 
duced during flight, for an enormous amount of 
energy is consumed in punching a 12-inch hole ten 
miles long through the atmosphere. Gravitation, 

[191] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

also, is drawing the projectile toward the earth 
with a constant pull of half a ton, to counteract 
which the trajectory must be made an upward 
curve. This makes the path longer, and consumes 
additional energy in raising the projectile to the 
top of the trajectory. 

If a projectile could be thrown from a gun at 
a velocity equal to that of a meteor, it would blaze 
like the sun during flight, for the metal upon its 
surface would be fused and gasefied by the resist- 
ance and friction of the air. It would not make 
any difference whether it were made of the tough- 
est, hardest tempered steel, or whether it were 
made of soft iron. The velocity would be so great 
that it would pass through the heaviest armor- 
plate without appreciable reduction of speed. If 
the projectile were of lead, it would require armor- 
plate of a greater thickness to stop it than if it 
were of steel, for the reason that its mass or 
weight for its bulk would be greater. 

Distance and the intervening air are our most 
efficient protection. No armored defense now em- 
ployed is wholly effectual, except the range be 
long. By consequence, then, future naval battles 
will be decided more and more by speed and size 
of guns, rather than by armored protection. 

Were two modern dreadnoughts to battle at as 
close range as did the Monitor and the Merrimac, 
immediate destruction would be mutual. They 
would cripple each other more in four minutes 

[192] 



LANGUAGE OF THE BIG GUNS 

than did the Monitor and the Merrimac in the four 
long hours during which they pounded each other. 

The Alabama and Kearsarge fought for more 
than an hour, within bowshot of each other, before 
the Alabama was destroyed. Were two of the big- 
gest and most heavily armored battleships in the 
world to fight today at as close range, one or the 
other of them would be destroyed in a very few 
minutes. 

The projectiles fired from the monster naval 
guns now weigh many times as much as those 
thrown from the guns of either the Monitor or the 
Merrimac, and these huge projectiles have also a 
multiplied velocity. The total thickness of the 
armor of the Monitor's turret was ten inches. An 
iron wall of the character used in Ericsson's tur- 
ret, five feet in thickness, would not afford ade- 
quate protection against our modern, monster 
guns. 

Of course, the character of armor-plate has been 
vastly improved since that time. Instead of being 
merely soft iron, as was that of the Monitor, 
armor-plate is now made of the hardest and tough- 
est tempered steel that science can produce. So, 
also, is the projectile. The projectile has far more 
than held its own. It is necessary, therefore, that 
the most heavily armored ships, as well as those 
unarmored, must fight today at long range, de- 
pending mainly upon skilled marksmanship and 
power and range of guns, rather than upon 

[ 193 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

armored protection. A battle at close range be- 
tween two huge modern dreadnoughts would be as 
deadly to both combatants as a duel between two 
men standing close together, face to face, holding 
pistols at each other's breast. 

When a chemical engineer makes an invention, 
and needs money for its exploitation, he first in- 
terests capitalists by letting them see the inven- 
tion practised on a laboratory scale, embodying 
essentially the same conditions as would be in- 
volved in the larger commercial application. 
Similarly, we may get a very just and depend- 
able idea of the relative efficiency of guns and 
armor-plate on a naval-battle scale, by taking into 
consideration what would be the result of a lesser 
conflict, embodying essentially the same condi- 
tions. 

Suppose two men were to fight a duel, one wear- 
ing armor capable of protecting him as efficiently 
against rifle balls as the heaviest armor carried 
by any warship today is capable of protecting it 
against modern cannon-fire ; the other wearing no 
armor, and being thereby enabled to run much 
faster than his armor-clad opponent. Obviously, 
if the unarmored man had a gun of longer range 
than that carried by the protected man, he would 
be able to keep out of range of his enemy's gun, 
while still keeping him well within range. Thus he 
would be able to continue firing at him until he 
killed him, without in return being hit at all. 

[194] 



LANGUAGE OF THE BIG GUNS 

At the battle of Santiago, the American fleet 
made only about two per cent, of hits with its 12- 
inch guns. Since that time very great improve- 
ments have been made in fire-control, and the 
accuracy of gun-fire. Today, a battle-cruiser, go- 
ing at the rate of thirty knots, will hit an object 
on the sky-line a tenth the size of a battleship' 
with the accuracy that Buffalo Bill from horse- 
back would hit a man's hat at a distance of twenty 
paces. 

In the naval battle between von Spee and Crad- 
ock, off the coast of Chili, they opened fire on 
each other with deadly effect at 12,000 yards. In 
the running fight off the Falkland Islands, most of 
the execution was done at a range of 15,000 yards. 

In the North Sea fight, according to the report 
of Admiral Beatty, the British shots began to take 
effect on the enemy at ten miles, and the whole 
battle was fought at a range of over seven miles. 
The German guns, being mounted so that they 
could be elevated much more than the British, 
were able to shoot not only as far, but even far- 
ther. The British guns, however, were much more 
effective, because of the greater weight of metal 
thrown. 

When projectiles are increased in size the at- 
mospheric resistance at equal velocity increases as 
the square of the diameter, while the mass in- 
creases as the cube of the diameter. Consequently, 
large projectiles lose less velocity during flight, in 

[195] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

proportion to their weight, due to the resistance 
of the air, than do smaller projectiles. 

Only within the last few years has rapid-fire 
with very large guns become possible. Now, how- 
ever, loading machinery has been so perfected 
that the limit is no longer that of hand-power. 
Wherever in nature forces are opposed, there is a 
tendency toward an equilibrium. There is now a 
tendency toward the establishment of an equilib- 
rium between the power of offense and the power 
of defense — between gun-fire and armor-plate. 

Nevertheless, the mean force of gun-fire remains 
still far superior to that of armored resistance. 
The mean armored resistance is now about on a 
par with that of the moderate caliber guns, as, for 
example, 6- and 8-inch guns. If there were no 
larger guns than those of 6- and 8-inch caliber, 
guns and armor-plate would be about neck and 
neck in the race. Consequently, we must look to 
the winning of naval victories by the employment 
of guns of more than 8-inch caliber. 

Speed is o I such supreme importance in naval 
engagements that its value should be especially 
emphasized. Superior speed enables the fleet pos- 
sessing it to choose its own position, thus deter- 
mining the range and the direction from which 
the attack shall be made. If the fleet happens to 
have guns of larger caliber and longer range than 
the enemy, it may be important, also, to choose 
its weather by keeping out of action until it can 

[196] 



S.^'t-^ ■■■■i'J^^^, '■: '^^^<^-y-^iQ^^f ' C^: 






f-'?'"^L> 



f^::^; -vm/ 






>-v,: 



/v^. l.'^Tvio fleets, F and S, go into action in parallel lines, the range being chosen by the 
fleet, F, having ships of greatest speed and guns of longest range. 






c<riL; 






rr- 



0'cS>'-<^S' ^^i 



/v/. 2.~-The faster fleet, F, forges ahead, concentrating the fire of both its front ships on the 
van ship of the slow fleet, while the rear ship of fleet S is thrown out of range and 

cut of action. 



■F-. 



' <%IS> -<siS>' <^§is> ■ ■^^Q> 






<v.- :, 



^r~. cTT'o- 



'-j^r^, ;-^, ' 



f^^> 






V, 



Z-;^. i. — 'I he faster fleet, F, bends its course in front of the slcxer fleet, S, with increased 
concentration of fire on the leading ships of the latter, throwing its two rear ships 
out of action,, 



Z^ r^^ 



n 



'f\ 






cW 



-J 



Fig. 4. — The faster feet, F, doubles around and crumples the slower fleet, S, and pours into 
its foremost ships an overxuhelming enfilading fire, xiihiU its four rear ships are 

thrown out of action. 



A 






•;: 










(■iQ, 


W A 


% 




■^' '^} 


■^Vx 


n 


^ 






■0 




J^ /--:■ 


_-- 






.^ t^' 


.A^- 5", 


4f' 


""'/■ 7 




■■■---' ^--^u^ 




■// 




- "> ■ , ■ 








- r^ 


_■ 






vi^.-r ■ . 


■ :-, 






K'^:^'. 


;. ^^<y 






Vj 




, 








■■■: 




.■^~'-^: : .■<: 


'£j>^-'- 




.; ,. . 


' ■ ■ 1 ■■ ' ■ '■ ■ '"'■^ 


.;■;. ,' . ' v--'f: -.;<, ' 





fig. 5. — The sicwer fleet, S, is forced into a circular position and destroyed, tohile its rtOt 
ships art constantly kept out of action. 



LANGUAGE OF THE BIG GUNS 

fight at the maximum range of its own guns. The 
slow fleet must always fight at a disadvantage. 

Let us picture two opposing fleets drawn up for 
battle. The fleet with fastest ships and guns of 
longest range, lining up at the maximum effective 
distance for its fire, steams at first in a line paral- 
lel with the enemy and in the same direction that 
the enemy is steaming. The faster fleet is soon 
able to run its van ships forward of the van ships 
of the enemy, turning in front of them, thereby 
bringing the front ship of the enemy's line under 
the combined fire of its o^vn two foremost ships, 
while the rearmost ship in its line of battle gets 
out of range of the rearmost ship of the enemy, 
placing the latter entirely out of action. This 
movement is continued until the enemy's line is 
encircled, crumpled up, and destroyed. There^ 
fore, we see that superior speed enables the fleet 
possessing it to put a portion of an enemy's fleet 
entirely out of action, while at the same time plac- 
ing the remainder of the enemy's ships under the 
combined fire of a superior number. 

In June, 1897, I delivered a lecture before the 
Royal United Service Institution of Great Britain, 
in which I illustrated and recommended the em- 
ployment of a gun of very large caliber for use 
on fighting ships and in coast fortifications. 

The United States government had, several 
years previously, adopted the multi-perforated 
smokeless cannon-powder invented by me. This 

[197] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

form of grain rendered it possible to use a pure 
nitro-cellulose smokeless powder in large guns, 
because it greatly reduced the initial area of com- 
bustion in proportion to the mass, while as the 
combustion progressed this condition was re- 
versed and a very large area was presented to the 
flame of combustion in proportion to the mass. 
Consequently, the initial pressure in the gun was 
much reduced, while greater pressure was main- 
tained behind the projectile in its flight through 
the gun than could be obtained by any other form 
of grain. This made possible the attainment of 
a very high velocity, with a comparatively low 
initial pressure and, consequently, with com- 
paratively small strain upon the gun. For this 
reason, and because of the low heat in the combus- 
tion of pure nitro-cellulose powder, the erosive 
action upon the gun was reduced to a minimum. 

I invented another and a special form of multi- 
perforated grain by means of which a yet lower 
initial pressure for a given density of loading 
was secured, the rate of combustion being still 
more highly accelerated. 

Believing that the advantages of projectiles of 
great size, carrying a very large bursting charge, 
could be better illustrated by a gun of extraordi- 
nary caliber, I designed a cannon having a caliber 
of twenty-four inches, but having a weight of only 
43 tons, the weight and length of the gun 
being the same as the British 12-inch 43-ton 

.^ [198] 



LANGUAGE OF THE BIG GUNS 

gun. This gun was designed to throw a semi- 
armor-piercing projectile weighing 1,700 pounds, 
and carrying an explosive charge of 1,000 pounds, 
the total weight of the projectile being 2,700 
pounds. While the projectile was not designed 
to pierce heavy armor, it was capable of penetrat- 
ing the decks and sides of light-armored cruisers 
and deep into earth or concrete for the destruc- 
tion of forts. It was a veritable aerial torpedo. 
By means of the special form of multi-perforated 
smokeless powder designed for this gun, the 
huge projectile could be thrown to a distance of 
nine miles with the gun at maximum elevation, 
and still with a comparatively low chamber pres- 
sure. 

The projectile was provided with a safety delay- 
action detonating fuse, designed to explode it 
after having penetrated the object struck, thereby 
securing the maximum destructive effects. 

It is reported that the Germans have made a 
huge howitzer weighing 45 tons, having a caliber 
of 23^ inches, which also is capable of throwing a 
projectile weighing more than a ton to a distance 
of nine miles. 

The drawings used in my lecture were published 
in the Journal of the Royal United Service Insti- 
tution, April, 1898, and re-published in many sci- 
entific and engineering magazines, and in news- 
papers both here and abroad. The descriptions 
of this gun and projectile were illustrated, as was 

[199] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

the manner of its employment for the destruction 
of the kinds of forts destroyed by the Germans at 
Liege and Namur. 

The use of high explosives in big armor-piercing 
projectiles is now universal, but on the publica- 
tion of my lecture in 1897 I was subjected to much 
criticism, especially in some of the London news- 
papers, whose editors took issue with me as to the 
practicability of throwing large bursting charges 
of high explosives from high-power guns. Prior 
to that time the only success achieved in throwing 
large charges of high explosives was by use of 
the Zalinski pneumatic dynamite gun, a battery 
of which had been made and mounted at great ex- 
pense at Sandy Hook. These air-guns imparted 
a maximum velocity of only about 600 feet per 
second to the projectile. The maximum charge 
was 600 pounds of nitro-gelatin. The projectile 
had no penetrating power whatsoever, and was de- 
signed to go off on impact. 

My proposition to throw large charges of a 
high explosive from a big gun, at high velocity, 
using a propelling charge of gunpowder, ap- 
peared to many to be a very hare-brained inten- 
tion indeed, to say nothing of shooting it through 
armor and exploding it behind the plate. 

On my return to America in 1898, I laid the 
matter before General A. R. BufSngton, Chief of 
the Bureau of Ordnance, United States Army, and 
Admiral Charles O'Neil, Chief of the Bureau of 

[ 200 ] 



LANGUAGE OF THE BIG GUNS 

Ordnance, United States Navy. General Buffing- 
ton sent me to Sandy Hook, where my new explo- 
sive, Maximite, was subjected to a very thorough 
trial. The first 12-inch projectile charged with 
it was buried in sand in an armor-cased cellar, 
and exploded. More than seven thousand frag- 
ments of the projectile were recovered, being 
sifted out of the sand. Twelve-inch projectiles 
charged with Maximite were repeatedly fired 
through 12-inch armor-plate without exploding. 
Later, similar projectiles, armed with a fuse, were 
fired through the same plate and were exploded 
behind the plate. Although Maximite was fifty 
per cent, stronger than ordinary dynamite, yet 
it was so insensitive to shock as to be incapable 
of being exploded without the use of a very strong 
detonator. Maximite was the first high explosive 
successfully to be fired through heavy armor- 
plate, and exploded behind the plate, with a 
delay-action fuse. The fuse employed at that time 
was the invention of an army officer. Later, my 
fuse was subjected to a very long series of 
tests, and it was finally adopted in 1907 as 
the service detonating fuse by the United States 
Navy. 

If Uncle Sam would listen with an understand- 
ing mind to the language of the big guns now 
speaking on land and sea, he would immediately 
build a large number of huge howitzers. He would 
build a large number of good roads, capable of 

[ 201 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

standing the tread of these howitzers. He would 
build as well a goodly number of battle-cruisers, 
as big and as fast as any afloat in foreign seas, 
and armed with guns ranging as far as the guns of 
any foreign power. 



[202] 



CHAPTER Vm 
AERIAL WARFARE 

IN the present European War is being tested 
the enginery of destruction and slaughter 
that has been building and accumulating for 
half a century. It is the most stupendous experi- 
ment that the human race has ever tried. The 
magnitude of it confounds the senses ; the horror 
obsesses the mind and stumps realization. 

The influence of improvements in all kinds of 
weapons and machinery of war is further and 
further to complicate strategics. The more that 
invention, science, and discovery are employed 
in the development and perfection of implements 
of war, the more the use of those implements 
requires high inventive genius and high scientific 
skill. 

Before the outbreak of the war there were 
many military engines awaiting a practical trial 
in actual service, among them the dirigible bal- 
loon. During a period of forty years the nations 
of the world have been obliged to do a good deal 
of guessing, in spite of calculations based on 
previous experience in wars whose mechanism 
was very simple and crude as compared with the 

[203] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

present engines of war. But the improvements 
in weapons employed on terra firma did not con- 
stitute so far a step away from experience as 
engines of aerial warfare. Those engines of war 
which have been mainly the subjects of guess- 
work are the aeroplane and that dreadnought of 
the air, the Zeppelin, especially the latter. The 
advent of the aeroplane introduced an entirely 
new set of problems. 

Before the advent of the aeroplane, the navi- 
gation of the air was confined to the balloon. 
Contrary to expectation, the aeroplane, instead 
of putting the balloon out of the race, served only 
to stimulate higher development of the balloon, 
with the result that the dirigible balloon and 
the aeroplane have been developed side by 
side. 

From the outset, it was recognized that the 
chief desideratum in the development of the 
aeroplane consisted in greater stability, and es- 
pecially in automatic equilibration. 

The first aeroplanes were very imperfect. At 
the time of the early exhibitions which I wit- 
nessed, it was necessary to plan them to take 
place in the calm of the evening, just before sun- 
down. The aeroplane could not go up in a wind. 
No aeronaut would have undertaken to go up 
except when there was no wind. Even a mod- 
erate breeze made them quite unmanageable. 
Now, however, the aeroplane can rise in a gale 

[204] 



AERIAL WARFARE 

of wind, and fly right into the teeth of a hur- 
ricane. 

The old-style balloon conld only go with the 
wind. It could make no headway against it, but 
had to float like a feather on the lightest breeze. 
The modern dirigible, however, which has reached 
its highest degree of perfection in the Zeppelin, 
can travel through still air at a speed of sixty 
miles an hour, the speed of a gale of wind, and 
can brave a fifty-mile gale at a speed of ten miles 
an hour. This is altogether remarkable when we 
take into account the fact that the Zeppelin, with 
all its load, must be lighter than air, and there- 
fore, for its size, lighter than the fluffiest eider- 
down. 

Limitations of the Aerial Bomb 

Aviation makes a strong appeal to the imag- 
ination, and this fact, together with errors and 
misconceptions in the popular mind concerning 
the use and power of high explosives, has led to 
many strange predictions and weird conclusions 
about the destruction which dirigibles and aero- 
planes would be capable of doing by dropping 
bombs from the sky. 

Since the advent of aviation, many inventors 
have directed their energies to aerial bombs and 
bomb-dropping appliances. There have been, 
from time to time, fearful forecasts of the de- 

[205] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

struction of warships, coast fortifications, and 
large cities; for it was claimed that air-craft 
would be able to drop explosive bombs capable 
of wrecking the heaviest battleship and of blow- 
ing up coast fortifications and utterly laying 
waste cities and towns. It was predicted that 
the aeroplane would be able, with its bombs, to 
scatter armies like chaff before the whirlwind. 

The hopes of those who have believed in such 
dire destructiveness of bomb-dropping from air- 
craft have been dashed to the ground, with the 
bombs they have dropped. Of course, aviators 
may drop any form of infernal machine which, on 
exploding, will mangle by-standers with frag- 
ments of scrap iron, but the effect must neces- 
sarily be very local. 

The most effective use aviators can make of 
bombs and infernal machines is to destroy one 
another in the sky and to attack magazines and 
storehouses, wireless stations, hangars, and bal- 
loon-sheds within the enemy's lines, and beyond 
the reach of other means of attack. Also, in con- 
nection with the attack of advancing troops, aerial 
bombs dropped from aeroplanes may be used with 
effect, especially in disentrenching an enemy. At 
sea, too, with the latest types of aeroplane, bombs 
of sufficient size and weight and power of pene- 
tration may be used destructively against un- 
armored or light-armored war-vessels. A more 
efficient means, however, than has yet been 

[206] 



AERIAL WARFARE 

adopted is needed to secure the required accuracy. 
Naturally, such bombs are admirably adapted to 
the destruction of dirigible balloons. The swift- 
winged aviator is able to manoeuvre at will around 
and above a huge dirigible and to attack it from 
any quarter. 

There is probably no one subject about which 
there is more popular error than concerning the 
use and destructive effects of high explosives. 

An anarchist once attempted to blow up Lon- 
don Bridge with two small sticks of dynamite, 
and succeeded merely in getting himself into 
trouble. At another time, a dynamiter entered 
the Houses of Parliament and exploded ten 
pounds of dynamite in one of the large corridors, 
with the result that it only made a hole in the 
floor and smashed a few windows. 

As a matter of fact, airships are capable of 
working comparatively small damage by drop- 
ping bombs, unless the bombs can be made to hit 
and penetrate the object struck before exploding, 
for the reason that, unless confined, explosives 
have but little effect. 

When a mass of high explosive is detonated 
upon a firm, resisting body, like the earth, or the 
deck of a battleship, or armor-plate, the effect is 
to rebound from the resisting body with small 
result. For example, when a mass of high ex- 
plosive is set off on the earth's surface, the ball 
of incandescent gases bounds upward, spreading 

[207] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

out in the form of an inverted cone. While it 
will blow a hole of considerable size into the 
ground, still the effect in a horizontal plane is 
practically nil. The windows of buildings stand- 
ing in the vicinity of an explosion of this char- 
acter are not blown inward, but are blown out- 
ward in the direction of the explosion by atmos- 
pheric reaction. 

At Sandy Hook, several years ago, an experi- 
ment was tried with two hundred pounds of gun- 
cotton exploded against a twelve-inch plate, im- 
mediately back of which were placed a cage con- 
taining a rooster and a hen, and another cage 
containing a dog. The guncotton was hung 
against the plate and detonated. The effect upon 
the plate was nil. On examination, it was found 
that the dog and the two fowl had been made 
rather hard of hearing. That was the only 
noticeable effect upon the animals. 

We all remember the test of the big, eighteen- 
inch Gathmann gun at Sandy Hook about twelve 
years ago, which threw a bomb containing six 
hundred pounds of compressed guncotton that 
was exploded against the face of a twelve-inch 
Kruppized plate. The first shot produced no visi- 
ble effect except a yellow smudge on the face of 
the plate. It took three shots even to crack the 
plate and to shift it in its setting. 

In competition with the Gathmann gun, a 
twelve-inch army rifle was fired against another 

[ 208 ] 



AERIAL WARFARE 

plate of the same size and thickness and mounted 
in the same manner. The projectile contained 
only twenty-three pounds of Maximite. Yet, as 
the projectile penetrated the plate before the Max- 
imite was exploded, a hole was blown through it 
a yard wide, and it was broken into several pieces. 

These tests proved the effectiveness of even a 
small quantity of high explosive when properly 
confined, as by explosion after penetration, and 
the utter ineffectiveness of a large mass of high 
explosive when not confined or when exploded on 
the outside of a body. 

Bombs carried by an airship and dropped upon 
the deck of a battleship may damage the super- 
structure a little, but they can have no material 
effect upon the ship itself, unless they are made 
heavy enough and strong enough, with the proper 
armor-piercing shape, and are dropped from a 
sufficient height to pierce the deck. Not unless 
the bomb can be made to penetrate an object be- 
fore exploding can it effect much destruction. 

At Santiago, the Vesuvius, with its pneumatic 
guns, threw several six-hundred-pound bombs, 
and exploded them on the Spanish fortifications, 
but the effect was wholly insignificant. 

Several years ago, when the subway was being 
built, a dynamite magazine accidentally exploded 
in front of the Murray Hill Hotel. The magazine 
probably contained at least a ton of dynamite. A 
lot of windows were broken in the vicinity, some 

[209] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

persons were injured, and a multitude badly 
scared, but the damage done even to the Murray 
Hill Hotel was comparatively small. 

It has been predicted that Germany would send 
across the Channel a large fleet of airships and 
blow up British towns with the bombs that her 
great gas-bags might drop out of the heavens. 

Now, at last, the much-vaunted and long-antici- 
pated Zeppelin invasion has come, and what is the 
result? Four peaceful citizens killed, and about 
ten thousand dollars' worth of property damage. 

Let us suppose that the Germans should send 
a fleet of a hundred airships to drop bombs upon 
the city of London, returning to Germany each 
day for a new supply; and let us suppose that 
each airship should carry explosives enough to 
destroy two houses every day, which would be far 
more than they could actually average. Yet, if 
this aerial fleet should be able to destroy two 
hundred houses a day, or say, roughly, sixty thou- 
sand houses a year, it would succeed in destroy- 
ing just about the annual growth of London, for 
that city has, during the past ten years, built sixty 
thousand new houses every year. 

The dirigible balloon has one signal advantage 
over the aeroplane in the matter of bomb-drop- 
ping. It can both carry bigger bombs and remain 
stationary and hover while it drops them. With 
the aeroplane, however, there is necessarily great 
difficulty in hitting underlying objects, on account 

[210] 



AERIAL WARFARE 

of tlie high speed at which it must travel to sus- 
tain flight. In order to float, an aeroplane must 
travel about thirty miles an hour. Even at this 
speed, it is moving forward at the rate of forty- 
four feet a second, and as a bomb travels at the 
same speed as the aeroplane, except for the re- 
tardation of the air, it moves forward forty-four 
feet the first second, while dropping sixteen feet. 
The next* second the bomb falls sixty-four feet 
and moves forward forty-four feet, and so on. 

Sixty miles an hour is a moderate speed for an 
aeroplane, however, and at that speed the bomb 
travels forward eighty-eight feet per second when 
it is dropped, so that, during the first second, 
while it descends but sixteen feet, it moves for- 
ward eighty-eight feet. It falls sixty-four feet 
the next second, and moves forward eighty-eight 
feet, and so on, descending in a parabolic curve, 
so that, by the time it strikes the earth, it may be 
several hundred feet from the place at which it 
is aimed. 

Although the dirigible balloon, a Zeppelin, for 
example, may hover in a stationary position at 
will when dropping bombs, still it constitutes such 
an enormous target that it must fly very high in 
order to keep out of range of gun-fire. Guns are 
now made which can reach air-craft at the height 
of two miles. At that height, or at half that 
height, there can be but little accuracy in bomb- 
dropping, even from the stationary Zeppelin. 

[211] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

The efficiency of a fighting machine is exactly 
proportionate to the amount of life and property 
that it can destroy in a given time with the min- 
imum exposure of property and life in order to 
do the work. If a fleet of a dozen Zeppelins should 
be able to attack and destroy an entire British 
fortified town like Dover, it would be a good in- 
vestment. If, however, the loss that it would be 
able to inflict upon the enemy were only equal to 
the loss that the British would inflict upon it, then 
it would be a bad investment, or at least, an in- 
vestment without profit, for the reason that, in 
war, it is poor policy to risk the destruction of 
a valuable war-engine merely for the destruction 
of what may be termed non-belligerent property 
of an enemy, such as the dwellings of the inhab- 
itants of a city. 

Suppose, for example, that a couple of Zep- 
pelins should be able to destroy houses in a Brit- 
ish town having a value ten times as great as the 
value of one of the Zeppelins, and, in the attack, 
should lose one of the Zeppelins, it would not be 
a profitable raid, for a Zeppelin, being useful for 
scouting purposes, is a potential factor in decid- 
ing the issue of the war, whereas the houses 
have practically no bearing on the issue of the 
war. 

It is good policy to use both men and ma- 
chinery of war only for the destruction of men 
and machinery of an enemy, and not for the de- 

[212] 



AERIAL WARFARE 

struction of non-combatant inhabitants and prop- 
erty. 

Much has been said about gun-fire from air- 
craft upon underlying troops. A man standing 
on the earth, being seen endwise, presents a much 
smaller target to the vertical fire of the air-man 
than he presents when fired at horizontally from 
the earth, because in the one case he is seen end-to, 
and in the other case side-to. Besides, several 
other men may be exposed to the horizontal fire. 
The air-man, however, is a conspicuous target, and 
if his machine is hit and crippled the result is 
fatal to him. 

Aeroplane and Dirigible Compared 

As I have for many years predicted, the chief 
use of air-craft, whether aeroplane or dirigible 
balloon, is for purposes of reconnaissance. 

This war has amply demonstrated the fact that 
air-craft are of enormous value. They have ren- 
dered surprises in force practically impossible. 
Each side has been able to keep itself fully aware 
of the numbers and disposition of oppc«ing 
troops. 

The aeroplane costs but a fraction of what the 
Zeppelin costs, while the Zeppelin presents a 
target enormously larger. It constitutes a target 
so big as to make the broad side of a barn blush 
with envy. 

[213] 



DEFENSELESS 'AMERICA 

As one effective hit will bring down either aero- 
plane or Zeppelin alike, obviously, the aeroplane 
has the advantage over the Zeppelin, as a target, 
equal to the difference in size multiplied by the 
difference in cost. Furthermore, the aeroplane is 
far more mobile and more rapid in flight than the 
Zeppelin. 

In judging of the value of the Zeppelin for pur- 
poses of reconnaissance on land, as compared with 
the aeroplane, we must take into account the fact 
that a large number of aeroplanes can be built 
for the cost of a single Zeppelin, and manned with 
the crew of a single Zeppelin, and that these many 
aeroplanes, operating in concert, will be able to 
do much more effective work than one Zeppelin. 

If the Allies would be good enough not to shoot 
at them, Zeppelins might be very efficient indeed, 
hovering along the battle-front. These dirigibles 
have been very conspicuous for their absence 
from the battle-front in the war. 

The use of the Zeppelin as a troop-ship has yet 
to be proven, and its value for the purpose will 
depend upon how it compares with the aeroplane 
for the same purpose. Aeroplanes capable of car- 
rying at least a dozen soldiers each, with the arms 
and equipment of a raider's outfit, can now be 
built. Obviously, as a large number of such aero- 
planes can be built at the cost of a single Zeppelin, 
and as the aeroplane can travel even faster than 
the Zeppelin, the Zeppelin cannot for one moment 

[214] 



AERIAL WARFARE 

compare with the aeroplane, even for the purpose 
of carrying troops. 

There is one purpose, however, for which the 
Zeppelin is admirably adapted, where it is much 
superior to the aeroplane, and it is for recon- 
naissance over sea. The Zeppelin can hang on the 
sky and scan the sea as a hawk scans a field for 
its prey ; and as it can carry a wireless apparatus 
capable of transmitting messages to a distance of 
two hundred miles or more, it can keep the Ger- 
man fleet constantly informed of the positions of 
the British fleet in the near seas. It is thus able 
to direct a sortie of ships when the numbers and 
disposition of the enemy's ships are such as to 
insure success. 

The Zeppelin has also a very important use in 
the detection of submarines, for the reason that 
from a vertical position submarines, under favor- 
able conditions, can easily be seen at considerable 
depths below the surface, and the Zeppelin, with 
its long-range wireless, is able promptly to report 
such valuable information. 

I am of the opinion that the Germans have 
planned and built their Zeppelins mainly for over- 
sea fighting against England, and for a prospec- 
tive invasion of England. I think they must have 
been disappointed in the lack of destructiveness 
that their bombs have had when dropped from 
Zeppelins, while the moral effect on England must 
also have been disappointing. 

[215] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

From the point of German advantage, it would 
be a good plan to frighten the British if it would 
take the fight out of them, but it is a very bad 
plan to frighten the British if it puts more fight 
into them. The Zeppelin raids have certainly had 
the effect of stimulating the British fighting spirit. 

It is especially regrettable that the United 
States Government did not heartily co-operate 
with the Wright Brothers to lead the world in 
the development of the aeroplane ; but nothing of 
the sort was done. *^We have,'* as Congressman 
Gardner says, **been experimenting and expect- 
ing and reporting and contracting and consider- 
ing — in fact, we have been doing everything ex- 
cept building aeroplanes." 

The Wright Brothers, however, were received 
with glad foreign embrace. They were generously 
encouraged abroad, both by co-operative and com- 
petitive experiments and by liberal purchases. 
The result was that, on the breaking out of the 
European War, France, for example, had 1,400 
aeroplanes, while the United States had but 
twenty-three, mostly obsolete. The United States 
Government has followed its time-honored custom 
of allowing its naval and military inventions to 
be developed and perfected abroad before adop- 
tion here. 

Prior to the outbreak of the European War, 
this government ordered from abroad an up-to- 
date French aeroplane with two Salmson motors, 

[216] 



AERIAL WARFARE 

and one of the latest German aeroplanes with two 
Mercedes motors, with the intention of building 
a few of these machines. Then came the Eu- 
ropean War. The American purchases were com- 
mandeered, and we were thereby prevented from 
acquiring the much-desired air-craft. 

The de Bange obturator, an indispensable part 
of the breech mechanism of all large guns, was 
originally an American invention, but this Gov- 
ernment allowed it to be developed and perfected 
abroad and given a foreign name. 

Ericsson's Monitor was taken up by Europeans, 
right where its private builders left it, and it has 
been developed, mainly in England, into the mod- 
ern super-dreadnought. 

The interchangeable system of manufacture of 
small arms was developed and perfected in Amer- 
ica, but received no encouragement from the gov- 
ernment. This system is now universally em- 
ployed in the manufacture of small arms, and also 
in the manufacture of all kinds of machinery. It 
is for this reason that we are able to get a spare 
part for an automobile that will fit in place per- 
fectly without having it specially made. Before 
the advent of the interchangeable system of manu- 
facture of firearms, a sportsman in England went 
to his gunsmith to be measured for a shotgun just 
as he went to his tailor to be measured for a suit of 
clothes. At that time, no two guns were made 
exactly alike, and no piece of one gun would fit 

[217] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

any other gun, while now all the parts of one gun 
will M in the places of corresponding parts in 
every other gun of the same pattern. 

The year the United States Government 
adopted multi-perforated smokeless powder, Con- 
gress appropriated only $30,000 for smokeless 
powder, the orders to be divided among the dif- 
ferent manufacturers. This meant that inventors, 
like myself, who had started in a small way, were 
driven out of business. I went to England with 
my multi-perforated smokeless-powder grain, 
which had been adopted by the United States 
Government, but found it hard to get foreign 
manufacturers to recognize either the superiority 
of the multi-perforated grain or of the pure nitro- 
cellulose powder. The excessive erosion, however, 
of guns used in the present war, due to the use 
of powders containing a high percentage of nitro- 
glycerin, is already making those countries using 
nitroglycerin powders look longingly to the su- 
perior smokeless powder used in the United 
States. 

The United States Government has as yet taken 
no steps worth considering toward the obtainment 
of Zeppelins, or any other practical dirigible bal- 
loon. At the present time, there is not one in the 
American service. 

At the outbreak of hostilities abroad, France 
had 22 dirigibles and 1,400 aeroplanes; Russia, 
18 dirigibles and 800 aeroplanes; Great Britain, 

[218] 



AERIAL WARFARE 

9 dirigibles and 400 aeroplanes; Belgium, 2 
dirigibles and 100 aeroplanes; Germany, 40 
dirigibles and 1,000 aeroplanes ; Austria, 8 dirigi- 
bles and 400 aeroplanes; while the United States 
had, as I have mentioned, only 23 aeroplanes, 
mostly obsolete. 

Last year, the Secretary of the Navy appointed 
a Board to investigate the subject of aviation for 
the Navy, and to make recommendations. The 
Board recommended the appropriation of $1,300,- 
000 for that year, but Congress cut off the first 
left-hand numeral and appropriated the sum of 
$350,000 for the purpose. 

The present war has demonstrated that air- 
craft are the eyes of both armies and navies. If 
the Wright Brothers could have come to the coun- 
try's aid in the Spanish War, the American fleet 
would not have remained in doubt outside Santi- 
ago Harbor. Before the advent of aviation, one 
of the chief desiderata to a commanding officer 
was to find out what the enemy was doing behind 
the hill. Without the aeroplane, it is impossible 
to prevent surprises in force, and to avoid the 
deadly ambuscade. The aeroplane is absolutely 
indispensable for the location of masked batteries. 
It is impossible, without aeroplanes, even to ap- 
proximate the number and disposition of troops to 
which an army may be opposed. It is necessary 
to have not only a sufficient number of aeroplanes, 
especially designed and equipped for this pur- 



[219] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

pose, but also other aeroplanes, armed and 
equipped, to co-operate with them, and defend 
them against attack from the aeroplanes of the 
enemy. Just as dreadnoughts require battle- 
cruisers, and both require torpedo-boat destroy- 
ers, and all require other scout-ships and sub- 
marines, for co-operation against a fleet of an 
enemy, so do dirigibles and the different types 
of aeroplanes, according to their purpose, require 
one another for concert of action. 

What we have already seen of battles fought 
in the sky leads us to surmise that aerial battles 
of the future will be fought on a much larger 
scale. It will be found that the commander who 
expects to conquer the ground held by an enemy 
must first conquer the sky. Aviation carries war 
into the third dimension. 

Not only must the advance or retirement of 
troops be supported by artillery thundering from 
hill to hill, but also ihe troops must be supported 
and guided by pilots in the sky. 

The last Congress appropriated $1,000,000 for 
the aviation purposes of the Navy. It is the same 
million dollars that was cut from last year's ap- 
propriation, which ought to have been expended 
for the purpose during that period. 

It is a strange paradox that America, which 
has led the world in discovery and invention as 
applied to the industrial arts and sciences, should 
follow the rest of the world in their adoption by 

[220 ] 



AERIAL WARFARE 

the Army and Navy. The trouble is not with the 
bureaus and boards of the Army and Navy, which 
have merely the power to recommend such things, 
but it is the fault of Congressional false economy. 
As long as we allow other nations to lead us, both 
in the character and quantity of naval and mili- 
tary equipment, we are destined always to be 
weaker than other nations in that equipment ; con- 
sequently, when war comes, we spend money with 
the extravagance of frenzy to remedy the defect. 
We economized before the War of 1812, and dur- 
ing that war we wasted ten times as much as we 
had saved by our economy. We had disqualified 
ourselves by our economies to such an extent be- 
fore the outbreak of the great Civil War that this 
conflict became one of the most deadly and most 
expensive in the history of the world. What we 
saved by our economies, compared to what we 
lost by them on that occasion, is like a drop of 
water to a river of water. But we failed to profit 
by the experience, and, when the Spanish War 
broke out, we spent money with all the lavishness 
of prodigal inefficiency. 

If we could only be as wise as we have been 
lessoned by our sad experience, we would imme- 
diately take adequate measures to forefend our- 
selves against a repetition of such experiences; 
and one of those measures would be the building 
of an aerial fleet commensurate with our large 
needs. 

[221] 



CHAPTER IX 
OUR ARMAMENTS NOT A BURDEN 

LIFE being a reaction between the individual 
t and environing stimuli, it naturally follows 
that those stimuli not destructive are neces- 
sarily formative. 

The health and development of nations are gov- 
erned by the same law that governs the health and 
development of individuals. When an individual 
is subjected to a burden that does not break him, 
or to a trial that he is able to master, he is 
strengthened, not weakened, by the burden or the 
trial. Every individual is constantly being at- 
tacked by microbes of disease. So long as he pos- 
sesses sufficient powers of resistance to repel 
invasion of disease, his ability to resist disease is 
strengthened, and his immunity to further attacks 
is increased. It is only when disease gets inside 
a man that it becomes a destroyer. 

It is not a bad thing for a hen, but, on the con- 
trary, it is a very good thing for a hen to lay eggs 
and sit on them and hunger for three weeks in 
order to hatch the chicks, and then to scratch for 
them and hunt for them until they are able to take 
care of themselves. She is stronger, healthier^ 

[222] 



OUR ARMAMENTS NOT A BURDEN 

more intelligent, more competent, and altogether 
a better hen because of her exertion and her sacri- 
fice. The rearing of her chicks imposes no burden 
on the farmer, because she gets the wealth for 
their growth out of the ground. 

The human mother who bears and rears sons 
and daughters is supremely rewarded for all the 
pain and the burden. The husband and wife who 
toil for each other and their children are able to 
arrive thereby, and only thereby, at most complete 
living and the goal of supreme happiness. Happi- 
ness is our sense of the normal exercise of faculty ; 
consequently happiness is the feel of normal life ; 
unhappiness the feel of abnormal life. 

Just as we are strengthened by bearing all bur- 
dens that are not so heavy as to crush us beneath 
their weight, so the nation is enriched by the bur- 
dens it bears and the expenditures it makes for 
the general welfare of its people. We may help 
our understanding of this matter by recognizing 
the truth that everything primarily comes out of 
the ground, and that whatever comes out of the 
ground, whether from agriculture or mining, is 
newly-created wealth. Whatever stimulates a 
more active development of our natural resources 
produces accordingly a proportionate amount of 
new wealth. 

The people have been taught, until the belief is 
now well-nigh universal, that the cost of establish- 
ing, equipping, maintaining, and supporting a 

[ 223 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

standing army, the cost of building, manning, and 
supporting a large navy, and the expense of manu- 
facturing and storing large supplies of ammuni- 
tion and other war-materials, represent just so 
much dead loss to the taxpayers of the country. 

It is necessary to correct this error, and to dis- 
seminate the truth that the building of battle- 
ships, the manufacture of arms and ammunition, 
the manufacture of supplies of food and cloth- 
ing, require large numbers of laborers and 
skilled artisans, who become a great market for 
food and supplies of every description for their 
convenience and comfort, thereby giving employ- 
ment to myriads of others, back to the farmer; 
while the money paid for wages and produce is 
kept constantly in circulation. 

It is the difficulty of paying taxes from the 
pockets of poverty that makes taxes burdensome, 
and not their size. If the ability to pay a given 
amount in tax be tripled, the tax itself may be 
doubled, and the taxpayers still be the gainers.. J 

Wealth is what labor gets out of the ground; 
and whatever stimulates labor, or creates a de- 
mand for labor, is a direct stimulus to prosperity, 
by increasing both the number of laborers and the 
hours of labor, and by affording a market for 
the products of labor. 

If all of those thrown out of positions in a panic 
were to be put to work by the government in 
the production of war-materials, there would re- 

[ 224 ] 



OUR ARMAMENTS NOT A BURDEN 

suit no hard times, and the entire country would 
be better off. 

, The large standing army indispensable to Ger- 
many costs vast sums annually, but -the standard 
of personal efficiency is raised so much by mili- 
tary training, and industry is so stimulated to 
meet government requirements, that the Germans 
have captured markets all over the world for the 
sale of their manufactured products in ever- 
increasing quantities. 

According to statistics, we Americans spend 
every year on sensuous indulgence, on our hilar- 
ities — joy food, joy drink, joy dope, and night- 
outings — nine thousand million dollars, which, in 
gold, would weigh more than thirteen thousand 
tons — the weight of a good-sized battleship. 

The biggest super-dreadnoughts cost $15,000,- 
000 each, built in pairs ; built a hundred at a time, 
they certainly would not cost over $12,000,000 
each. "We could build, for what we spend on sensu- 
ous indulgence, 750 super-dreadnoughts ; we could 
build 160 super-dreadnoughts a year for what we 
spend on alcoholic beverages ; 83 a year for what 
we spend on tobacco; three a year for what we 
spend on chewing-gum. 

The total amount that we spend each year on 
our Army and Navy is about $250,000,000. Con- 
sequently, we spend more than twelve times as 
much on alcoholic drinks and tobacco as we do on 
our Army and Navy. 

[225] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

I do not mean to preach a temperance sermon, 
or to advise against the use of tobacco. Never- 
theless, I do think that for every dollar we spend 
on indulgence, we might drop a couple of cents 
into the side-till just for insurance — for the safety 
of our country against war, in order that our joys 
of living may be continued. 

The small burden of armaments in proportion 
to the burden of luxuries is very well stated in the 
following quotation from ^'Some Economic 
Aspects of War,'' by Professor C. Emery: — 

^^ Certainly Block is not lilcely to minimize the 
extent of such expenditures, as he has been one of 
the leading writers to show the immensity of 
this burden, and yet he himself states that the 
military expenditures of different European coun- 
tries vary from 2 per cent, to 3.8 per cent, of the 
total income. Even Germany, with her great or- 
ganization, takes less than 3 per cent, of the actual 
income for its maintenance, both of army and 
navy; and when we think of the expenditures for 
luxuries, many of them harmful in themselves, 
the extent of military expenditures appears even 
less. In Germany, for instance, three times as 
much is spent for intoxicating drinks as for the 
support of military and naval establishments. 
One-third less consumption of beer and liquor on 
the part of the German people would take care of 
this part of the budget altogether/' 

[226] 



(0 

S? 

•^ 

T5 

C 
<D 
Q 

UJ 

CO 

Q> 

-♦-» 

CO 
■«-» 

CO 

T3 


"c 

C 

C 

< 

E 

o 

CO 






C5 

<=> 
'a 

SI 

Co 






.« 

a 












I 






^ 

« 



3 

5 



OUR ARMAMENTS NOT A BURDEN 

There is no branch of insurance so important 
as insurance against war. There is no other thing 
insured, of which the loss is so vital as that of 
one's country, and there is no kind of insurance 
where the cost of security is so small in compari- 
son with the value of the thing insured. Mr. 
Stockton puts this very clearly in his book, *^ Peace 
Insurance": — 

"For insurance against loss hy burglary, the 
nation expends $2,850,000 annually; for insurance 
against crime in the form of municipal, county, 
and state police we expend $110,000,000 annually; 
making a total of $112,850,000 expended for 
premiums on crime insurance alone, . . . A total 
annual amount on fire and crime insurance com- 
bined is $594,186,104, or about 350 million more 
than for all our military forces. Considering 
these figures we may conclude that our military 
expenditures are by no means greater than the 
probable loss by a war; that they are small com- 
pared with the amounts spent for fire and crime 
insurance, and that the insurance rate is low com- 
pared with that for other hinds of insurance in 
effect in the business world. 



}f 



During periods of peace, there tends to be estab- 
lished an equilibrium of supply and demand be- 
tween our developed industries and our unde- 
yeloped resources. Consequently, when war comes 

[ 227 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

and stimulates enormously all our developed in- 
dustries — arts, sciences, and manufactures — a 
correspondingly greater demand is placed upon 
our natural resources, and their development is 
proportionately increased. 

The result is that the nation as a whole is not 
impoverished in the least by the burden of arma- 
ments, but is rather benefited by their support. 
Also, a nation may likewise be economically bene- 
fited by actual war, so long as it has such re- 
sources, number of population, industrial arts and 
sciences, and naval and military equipment as to 
prevent subjugation and the humiliation and deg- 
radation of being forced to pay ransom or tribute 
in the shape of a large war indemnity to a foreign 
Power. 

The fact that a war indemnity takes gold out 
of the country, and gives it to another people, 
makes the indemnity a national calamity. But 
when money is spent within the country, as it is 
for armaments, the condition is entirely different. 

The following excerpt from *'The Valor of 
Ignorance," by General Homer Lea, admirably 
presents this: 

'^Budgets are hut the sums total of the symbols 
of wealth. Whether they are great or small, the 
wealth of the nation varies not one potato. An in- 
dividual measures his wealth by coinage, but a 
nation only by that which coinage represents, 

[228] 



OUR ARMAMENTS NOT A BURDEN 

''As a man squanders Ms money, he becomes 
impoverished; hut it is only when the resources 
and means of producing that which money repre- 
sents are destroyed or diminished that the wealth 
of a nation is lessened. The armament of a na- 
tion, instead of being indicative of its impoverish- 
ment, is rather an indication of its capacity/' 

It is a law of psychology that, when we are 
subjected to a supreme test, we develop unrealized 
resources within ourselves; resources that never 
would be developed, nor could be, except through 
such trial. By consequence, it is evident that 
supreme trial is an indispensability to the best 
development of either individuals or nations. 
However severe may be the trial that results in 
the supreme development of the natural resources 
of the nation, and of the dormant resources in 
its people, it is essentially beneficial to the nation, 

Herbert Spencer said that, just as it is impos- 
sible to get a five-fingered hand into a three- 
fingered glove, mth a separate finger in each 
pocket, so it is impossible to get a complex thought 
into a mind not sufficiently complex to receive it. 
It is doubtless impossible, therefore, to prove to 
the pacifist mind that the money spent in building 
warships cannot be counted as so much loss to the 
, nation. 

The money spent by the government in build- 
ing fighting-ships could not be esteemed so much 

[229] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

money lost, even if the ships were useless. The 
government taxes the people for the money to 
build the ships, and then pays the money back 
to the people again for the ships. The people get 
their money all back, and the government gets 
the ships. The people lose nothing, and the gov- 
ernment is the gainer to the value of the ships. It 
may be argued that the labor of the people is lost, 
but what of it? Labor is neither money nor 
wealth; it merely represents time. It does not 
hurt the laborers to do the work ; on the contrary, 
it does them good. They pay but an infinitesimal 
part of the tax for building the ships. Their occu- 
pation constitutes them a market for manufac- 
tured articles and farm produce, which pays the 
manufacturers and the farmers a profit far in ex- 
cess of their part of the tax for the ships, since 
by the increased demand they both get better 
prices and sell more goods. The farmer exerts 
additional effort to supply the demand, for the 
laborers who build the ships, and the manufac- 
turers who supply their wares, call upon the 
farmer for greater supplies of produce than they 
could call for if the fighting-ships were not built. 
The farmer, always glad to get more out of the 
ground when he can sell to advantage, is stimu- 
lated to extra effort to get the greater profit, and 
he is made richer for it. The manufacturer is 
made richer for it, and the laborer is helped by 
higher wages and by more continuous occupation. 

[230] 



OUE ARMAMENTS NOT A BURDEN 

The result is that the fighting-ships have cost 
nothing. On the contrary, their production has 
benefited all. Everybody is made better and 
richer through the building of them. 

It is especially significant and pertinent that 
the added employment of labor in the construction 
of armaments adds greatly to the number of tax- 
payers. Consequently, the burden of taxation is 
thereby borne by a larger number of persons, 
with a corresponding lessening of the burden on 
each individual. This is one of the reasons why 
poverty is not increased by increased government 
expenditures in the employment of labor. 

The enjoyment of life being derived entirely 
from exercise of our faculties, the more useful 
exercise we get within our strength, the happier 
we are. The building of battleships, by putting 
us more to use, serves the double purpose of get- 
ting more wealth out of the ground and making 
us happier. It may be argued that this would 
not be true if our economic institutions were not 
slack, and that, by perfecting these institutions, 
every one would receive his due amount of normal 
stimulus, and would be getting out of the ground 
bis normal amount of wealth. This is all very 
true, but our economic institutions are not yet 
perfected, and the cost of building battleships 
comes out of the slack in our institutions. The 
work merely helps take up some of the slack. 

SVlien we have looked upon our Navy, remem- 

[ 231 ], 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

bering what the pacifists have told us about its 
enormous cost, we are strongly impressed with 
the colossal expenditure, not realizing that the 
Navy has actually cost nothing. Its production 
has been a source of profit and benefit to the 
people. 

That which determines the size of a burden is 
the ability to bear it. Our burden of armaments, 
borne upon the united backs of a hundred mil- 
lion people, with an aggregate wealth of more 
than a hundred and thirty billion dollars, with an 
annual increase of wealth of over four billion dol- 
lars, becomes insignificant compared with, the 
ability to support it. Size, like distance and time, 
has no meaning, except in a relative sense, for 
space and time are limitless. As compared with 
space, a mustard seed is exactly as large as the 
sun. 

We hear much about the tremendous burden of 
the present conflict upon the warring nations. The 
pacifists tell us that they are destined so to exhaust 
themselves that, when the war is over, we need 
have no fear of any one of them, or of a coalition 
of them, because they will have neither men nor 
money with which to fight. 

The first six months of the war cost about six 
billion dollars. Now, assuming that the first year 
of the war should cost even as much as fifteen bil- 
lion dollars, this would be only five per cent, of the 
wealth of the warring Powers. But, it must be re- 

[232] 



OUR ARMAMENTS NOT A BURDEN 

membered, that the same thing largely holds true 
in the case of war that holds true in the case of 
armaments in time of peace. The cost comes out 
of the ground, for the most part. In short, the 
wealth created by the added stimulus in great 
measure compensates for the loss, especially when 
the money spent is chiefly returned to the people 
themselves. The actual out-of-pocket loss to the 
nations in the present war, taking into account its 
economic advantages, even during the war, will 
probably not exceed two and a half per cent., and 
I doubt if it will amount to that much. 

The total number of killed and wounded in the 
European War during the first six months is esti- 
mated at about two million. Most of those 
wounded will suffer very little permanent in- 
jury. 

The population of the warring nations is more 
than four hundred millions, taking into account 
only such part of the vast Indian population in 
proportion to the percentage of troops furnished 
by them as compares with the percentage fur- 
nished from the United Kingdom to the number of 
its inhabitants. Consequently, the total loss in 
killed and wounded during the first six months of 
the war was less than a half of one per cent, of the 
population, and as the number of killed does not 
exceed ten per cent, of the total number of killed 
and wounded, the loss during the first six months 
was about a tenth of half of one per cent.; in 

[ 233 1 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

other words, only about a twentieth of one per 
cent. 

After the war has run for a year, the total loss 
in killed and wounded will not exceed one per cent, 
of the inhabitants, and the total in killed will not 
exceed a tenth of one per cent. 

When the war is over, any one of the warring | 
Powers, unless Germany is exceedingly humbled, 
will be in better condition in every way to fight 
us than it would have been before the war broke 
out. 



[ 234 ] 



CHAPTER X 

EGO-FANATIC GOOD INTENTIONS AND 
THEIR RELATION TO NATIONAL DE- 
FENSE 

"If you will study history you will find that freedom, "when it has 
been destroyed, has always been destroyed by those who shelter 
themselves under the cover of its forms, and who speak its language 
with unparalleled eloquence and vigor." — Lord Salisbury. 

There is a no more consistent thing in its constancy than human 
inconsistency. 

MANY of those who are most pretentious 
about the virtue of a meek and lowly spirit 
manifest characteristics the exact oppo- 
site of their self -vaunted pretensions. Often the 
most enthusiastic and devout workers for a prin- 
ciple are themselves, when put to trial, most pro- 
nounced violators of that principle. 

Some years ago, while on ship for England, I 
formed the acquaintance of Sir William Wyndeer, 
of j^ ustralia. He told me that there was a famous 
woman pacifist on board, who wanted to meet me. 
She was a notorious militant moral reformer — 
the Carrie Nation of England. I went with him 
to where she was sitting on the deck in a steamer- 

[235] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

chair, and, on being introduced, sat down beside 
her. 

She opened the conversation with the remark: 
**Do you know that men like you ought to be 
hanged; that hanging is too good for you; that 
men like you, who invent and make explosives and 
guns to kill people, ought to be killed with them 
yourselves ? That would give you a dose of your 
own medicine." 

I replied by asking her what she thought of the 
Armenian atrocities, which were at that time being 
perpetrated. 

*^What do I think of themT' she answered. '^I 
think just this — that, if I were the Queen of Eng- 
land, I would put an end to that business pretty 
quick." 

**How would you do it?" I asked. 

*^Why," she responded, ^^I would go there 
with an army, and exterminate those beastly 
Turks." 

*^If you were to do that," said I, ** surely you 
would need some of the tools for killing people, 
like those you blame me for inventing, would you 
not ? ' ' — She would not speak to me after that. 

In the Dark Ages, they who were responsible 
for inflicting upon heretics the most exquisite tor- 
tures, were the foremost good-intentionists of 
their time. They believed they were following the 
teachings of Christ, and applying them in their 
business and social relations. Their aim was to 

[236] 



EGO-FANATIC GOOD INTENTIONS 

practise what they preached: ^*Love one another," 
**Love thy neighbor as thyself," **0n earth peace, 
good will toward men. ' ' 

So imbued were they with what they conceived 
to be divine principles that it was self-evident to 
them that there was no excuse for any one holding 
any other opinion than theirs, and that any one 
who held a different opinion was an enemy of 
God and man, and should be punished accord- 
ingly. They called difference from their opinion 
heresy, which was branded as the most heinous of 
all crimes. Those good-intentionists of the Tor- 
quemada type racked, flayed, and burned, with a 
meek and lowly spirit, for the love of God. The 
horror of St. Bartholomew was to them merely a 
frolic of brotherly love. 

Advocates of disarmament, non-resistance, and 
the subversion of the military spirit are them- 
selves most militant creatures. They fail to see 
that, if retiring, non-resistant pacifism is the best 
policy for a nation to adopt in order to get what 
it wants, they themselves should adopt such paci- 
fism to get what they want. While they decry 
every manner of aggression, still they undertake 
to enforce their doctrines by most aggressive prac- 
tices. 

Never in all human history has any person or 
class of persons attempted to proselyte others to 
a doctrine of mildness, meekness, self-sacrifice, 
and lowly-spiritedness without attempting to en- 

[237] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

force the doctrine. In so doing, the practice has 
been the exact opposite of the preachment. 

Robespierre and Marat notably exemplified this 
truth. Before the French Revolution, Robespierre 
was noted as a pacifist of the most pretentious 
cheek-turning type, and Marat was a pacific moral- 
ist dyed in the wool. When raised to dictatorial 
power, however, Robespierre became the wicked- 
est and most venomous of all the fanged monsters 
of cruelty in the history of mankind ; while bloody 
Marat, clothed with authority, used murder as 
the sole means of reform. The actions of Robes- 
pierre and Marat were the exact opposite of their 
code for the conduct of others. 

The advocates of non-resistance may be per- 
fectly conscientious. It is not to be doubted for 
one moment that the majority of them are actu- 
ated by the best intentions and the kindliest of mo- 
tives. Torquemada sincerely hoped to do a great 
good by torturing heretics in the Spanish Inqui- 
sition. He is notable among those who have paved 
broad highways of Hell with good intentions. 

The hyper-sentimental pacifists are today ac- 
tively engaged in paving a broad highway through 
this country, over which the hell of war is invited 
by them. 

Devotion to the end justified the means to such 
a well-meaning fanatic as Torquemada. The same 
was doubtless true of Catherine de* Medici, who 
mothered the massacre of St. Bartholomew. The 

[ 238 ] 



EGO-FANATIC GOOD INTENTIONS 

bloody Duke of Alva, Executioner Extraordinary 
to Philip II of Spain, who undertook the task of 
killing the entire population of the Netherlands, 
because their religious opinion differed from the 
Spanish brand, could not have been so enthusi- 
astically devoted to the monstrous villainy had he 
not been inspired by what was to his mind the 
best of intentions. 

It is remarkable what an influence a very little 
thing may sometimes have in shaping the policy 
of a people or the fate of a nation. Eeligious 
sects have been formed upon the various interpre- 
tations of a single phrase ; a difference of opinion 
about the meaning of a word has set them at one 
another's throats. 

Millions upon millions of dollars have been 
spent in the United States in peace propagandism, 
and eloquent lungs have hoarsed themselves to 
defeat Congressional appropriations for defense, 
simply because the phrase, preparation for war, 
has been used instead of the phrase, preparation 
against war. 

An organization of American women, under the 
head, Woman's Peace Party, has lately been cre- 
ated. The main resolution adopted by the organ- 
ization is the following : 

^'Resolved: 

''That we denounce with all the earnestness of 
which we are capable the concerted attempt now 

[239] 



^DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

being made to force this country into still further 
preparedness for war. We desire to maJce a sol- 
emn appeal to the higher attributes of our common 
humanity to help us unmask this menace to our 
civilization/' 

They have made the grave mistake of using the 
expression for war in place of the expression 
against war. 

The pacifist propagandists, the army and navy 
men, and all their friends and supporters, are alike 
agreed that it is wise to make efficient prepara- 
tions against war. None of us wants war, but 
when we, who believe in armaments, speak of them 
as preparations for war, then the pacifists are in 
immediate disagreement with us. Let us, there- 
fore, in future substitute the phrase against war 
for the phrase for war. 

Among the organizers of this so-called party 
are women of national prominence. They are sin- 
cere in their purpose, their aim is high. They are 
emulating the dictum of Emerson, for they have 
hitched their wagon to a star — Dr. David Starr — 
(never mind the Jordan). They solemnly make 
this pledge : 

^'We do hereby band ourselves together to de- 
mand that war should be abolished." 

It is well to note that they have used the word 
should instead of shall, 

[240] 



EGO-FANATIC GOOD INTENTIONS 

The greatest difficulty in teaching truth is to 
remove the bias of false learning; for a firm con- 
viction, once established in the mind, gives the 
mind a fixed set in a certain direction. This is 
strongly exemplified by the fact that persons who 
have been proselyted to a certain religious creed 
can seldom be made to change their faith. 

We are what our opinions are. Our opinion 
shapes our destiny to its own bent. In short, a 
man is absolutely at the mercy of his opinion. 

We have very little to do, however, with the 
shaping of our own opinion. That is mostly 
shaped by others. We go to church to have our 
opinion bent, or its present bent stiffened. We 
attend a lecture and get a new kink put into our 
opinion; we converse with our friends, and they 
dent our opinion ; we read books and newspapers, 
learn something, and are swerved in the direction 
of our learning, especially in the direction of 
public opinion. Always and always, while we 
think that we are shaping our own opinion, we 
are having it shaped by others. 

The estimable ladies of the Woman's Peace 
Party are merely parading like sandwich men, dis- 
porting a legend written on a board by the man 
higher up, with whom they believe it is most 
creditable to agree. 

At the present time, the false teachings of the 
peace-propagandists have so proselyted public 
opinion that every public speaker, aspiring to 

[241] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

popular favor, finds it easy, even with a weakling 
voice and a halting speech, to get his audience 
with him, and to win a reputation for eloquence 
and wisdom by prating the bromidial spielings of 
the peace-propagandists. 

A great many men and women in this country 
hold the same false opinion that the ladies of the 
Woman's Peace Party hold. Possibly something 
besides the humiliation of this country by war 
may lead them into the light of understanding. 
War, however, will do it, and by their able co- 
operation with the forces of the future enemies of 
the country, they are hastening the advent of that 
war. 

If we were to disarm, as these ladies advise, war 
would come upon us with consternate suddenness. 
Then, when they saw the desolation and the waste ; 
saw their homes in flames ; when they saw innocent 
citizens clumped in open spaces and shot down 
with machine-guns ; when they saw little children, 
lean as shadows, starving everjrwhere ; when they 
encountered insult and maltreatment at every 
turn ; then all their womanhood would revolt and 
rise up with an altered mind. 

Like the light that descended from Heaven on 
Saul of Tarsus, the light of the truth would de- 
scend on those ladies through the smoke of their 
burning homes — that armed preparedness against 
such a dread eventuality as war is the supreme 
of virtue, and its neglect the worst of crimes* 

[ 242 1 



EGO-FANATIC GOOD INTENTIONS 

By their help that war is very likely to comey 
and if it does come, we shall find them, as the 
women of England, ministering angels in the hos- 
pitals of the wounded. We shall find them at the 
recruiting stations, urging enlistment. We shall 
find them fitting out their sons, husbands, and 
\ brothers for the front. We shall find them, as in 
England, training in the use of arms as a last 
emergency reserve. We shall find them, as in Eng- 
land, doing police duty, that the city guardians 
may go to the front. As the women of Carthage 
cut the hair from their heads to make bow-strings, 
so these very women of the Peace Party, as the 
women of England are doing, as the women of 
Germany are doing, will sacrifice their jewelry, 
and all their most precious possessions, to supply 
the sinews of war. 

It is a mistake to suppose that, because men 
bear arms in war, they are the chief sufferers in 
war, or make the chief sacrifices. The sexes suffer 
equally, for to win victory they make mutual and 
equal sacrifices, and in defeat they suffer mutually 
every conceivable and every inconceivable lacera- 
tion of body, pride, and honor. 

The supposition is erroneous that woman is less 
brave or less militant in war than man. In times 
of peace, when her help is not needed in the 
sterner affairs of life, she may be as gentle as a 
dove and as kind as a purring kitten ; but, when 
her help is needed in stern affairs, she is never 

[ 243 ], 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

found wanting. When the cubs are in danger, 
** the female of the species is more deadly than 
the male. ' ' 

The abject condition of Belgian women and chil- 
dren since the Grerman invasion is merely typical 
of what women and children must inevitably suffer 
at the hands of invaders. It matters not whether 
a country be invaded by Germans, Frenchmen, or 
Englishmen, or by Americans. The stern exi- 
gencies of war require that the invaders shall bend 
every energy and employ every resource to the 
attainment of the main purpose — victory. The in- 
vaders themselves are compelled to make extreme 
sacriiSces, and to bear extreme suffering and priva- 
tion, and are not in a mood to take on more burden 
or to suffer extra privations, and, above all, to 
risk success, in order to alleviate the suffering of 
the enemy's women and children. Sympathy and 
mercy, however, do often lead them to be far 
kinder than would best suit the demands of stern 
necessity. 

It was when Sherman found himself compelled 
to drive out the civil inhabitants of Atlanta, to 
prepare for his march to the sea, that in reply to 
protests on behalf of the women and children, he 
made his world-famous declaration, **War is hell; 
and we cannot civilize it or refine it.'' 

The supreme duty of a nation is to safeguard 
its people from such a crisis and such a calamity. 
It is useless to lament the miseries of our women 

[244] 



EGO-FANATIC GOOD INTENTIONS 

and children, after we have, through neglect of 
national defenses, brought the calamities of war 
upon them. 

With strange inconsistency, the women of the 
Woman's Peace Party, though they bemoan the 
lot of the poor women and children of Belgium, 
are by their own acts inviting the same calamity 
to fall upon themselves and on their children. 

Herbert Spencer observed that individual life 
is a tendency to establish an equilibrium between 
internal and external forces. This observation 
applies also to the life of social organizations, 
except that, when applied to nations, it should be 
differently stated, as follows — the life of a nation 
is the tendency to establish an equilibrium be- 
fWeen internal forces, and also between those 
forces and external forces. 

Opposing forces separately tend toward insta- 
bility of equilibrium, but collectively, by operating 
against one another, they tend to the establishment 
of an equilibrium. Individual action in a group 
of individuals tends to heterogeneity, aggregated 
action to homogeneity. One of the mainsprings 
of progress is the pertinacity of enthusiasts and 
faddists. Even the self-appointed ego-fanatic 
moral reformers are often useful, because they 
tend to throw society out of balance. This rouses 
the great mass of the people to inquiry and raises 
them to a broader understanding, with the result 
that, in the end, pernicious propagandists, who 

[245] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

liave overshot the mark, are brought back nearer 
the mark, and the sane mass of the people brought 
nearer the mark. A fanatic reformer sometimes 
injects dynamic force into a static condition. It 
seems to be a rational assumption, therefore, that, 
in all things where organized feminist fanaticism 
of both men and women is today working evil, the 
great body of sane and normal men and women 
ought to exert their united influence to the full as 
a stabilizer, or equilibrator of the social organ- 
ization. 



[ 246 ] 



CHAPTER XI 
A DANaEROUS CRIMINAL CLASS! 

" Probably the most curious feature of the naval program is 
the regularity with which the sky clouds over as the day for the 
consideration of naval appropriations approaches. Year after 
year, after a long spell of pleasant weather, all at once storm 
clouds have drifted across the heavens, international relations 
have become suddenly strained, and the whole land has lain in 
the shadow of an impending conflict. Fortunately, the storm 
blows over as soon as the votes are counted, and in the beauti- 
ful sunlight which follows the storm, workmen are seen con- 
structing additional battleships. Suspicious persons have oc- 
casionally imagined they saw a connection between the interna- 
tional weather and the Navy League." 

Dr. Charles E. Jefferson. 

" It is criminal that we should expend vast sums on warships 
and armament on the advice of interested parties alone. ..." 

** War scares are heard the world over. The world over they 
are set going by wicked men for evil purposes." 

Dr. David Starr Jordan, " War and Waste.'* 

THE pacifists have delved out of the infinite 
latency a very startling alleged truth, 
which they are effulging in language of 
lavish luminosity, to the effect that it is necessary 
only for a man to have a pecuniary interest or 
personal advantage involved in order to commit 
any kind of crime. They have discovered that 

[247] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

room for a motive establishes the motive and 
proves the crime. They have discovered that 
those things which we call integrity and honor 
and conscience are no deterrents whatsoever to 
the commission of the most heinous offense 
against one 's fellow men, so long as there is profit 
in it. They believe that, if only there is money 
in the game, an inventor or manufacturer or mer- 
chant will scheme for the commission of whole- 
sale poisoning, maiming, and murder. They be- 
lieve that the inventors and manufacturers of 
guns necessarily foster war in order to promote 
the sale of their wares. They surmise that in- 
ventors and manufacturers of smokeless powders 
and high explosives are capable of standing with 
the *' black hand,'' capable of being gladdened at 
the dynamite outrage, at the street riot, at the 
slaughter of song-birds — anything that will con- 
sume dynamite or burn gunpowder. 

According to the pacifists, the principal lay of 
makers of war-materials is to connive with the 
officers of the Army and Navy to stir up interna- 
tional dissension and foment war, in order to cre^ 
ate a demand for their products. The pacifists be- 
lieve that army and navy officers are only too 
willing to co-operate in the nefarious business, be^ 
cause war brings higher pay and rapid promotion. 
They believe that it matters not to these ^^inter- 
ested parties ' ' how many of their countrymen are 
sacrificed on the firing line, or how many widows 

[248] 



A DANGEROUS CRIMINAL CLASS? 

and orphans are made. The groans of the 
wounded and dying on the battle-field, and the 
lamentations in the desolated home, are music to 
the ears of those who supply the war-materials; 
for, with every shot from a rifle, fifty grains of 
gunpowder are burned, while bullets enough miss 
their mark to equal the weight of each man they 
kill. Consequently, there is substantial profit to 
the cartridge-maker and the gunpowder-manufac- 
turer for every man killed with a rifle ball. 

But it is in shrapnel and the ammunition for 
the big guns that the greatest profit lies. Field- 
guns fire away ammunition costing from ten to 
twenty dollars a shot, at the rate of from twenty 
to forty shots a minute. This costs a lot of money. 
At the battle of Mukden, in the Russo-Japanese- 
war, one battery of eight guns fired 11,159 rounds,, 
or 1,395 rounds per gun. Think of the expense of 
that anununition, and the profit to the manufac- 
turers ! It is estimated that when the big naval 
guns are fired, the cost of the smokeless-powder 
charge, the projectile and bursting charge, to- 
gether with the wear and tear of the gun, amounts- 
to more than $2,000 a shot, and the damage done 
to a warship hit may be many millions. 

Look at it any way you will, war, according to 
the pacifist notion, is a real Klondike for manu- 
facturers of war-materials. The peace sophists 
have been able to put two and two together, with 
the conclusions that such an opportunity for profit 

[249] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

is too strong for human nature to resist, and that, 
as they have found room for the motive, they have 
proved the crime. 

Of course, their accusation is a pretty severe 
arraignment of human nature, after all these 
years of civilization and Christian enlightenment. 

It is strange how human nature can have im- 
proved so much lately, as claimed by the pacifists, 
and how the spirit of brotherhood and good-will 
can have suddenly become so dominant that the 
peoples of the earth now despise war, and are so 
afflicted with the horrors of it that, just as soon 
as the great European War is over, they are not 
going to fight any more, while still the makers of 
war-materials remain in the primitive savagery 
of the stone age. It seems to me that, if human 
nature has so improved as to be an efficient bar 
to a nation against waging war for plunder, re- 
gardless of the advantage and the profit, it ought 
also to be a similar bar to inventors and manu- 
facturers of war-materials, and to army and navy 
officers, against precipitating war for pecuniary 
or personal advantage. 

But, according to pacifist reasoning, those 'in- 
terested parties" are more endowed with the 
spirit of the hyena than with the spirit of brother- 
hood. Perhaps, however, the manufacturers of 
war-materials, and army and navy officers, were 
not home when the great improvement in human 
nature knocked at their door. 

[ 250 ] 



A DANGEROUS CRIMINAL CLASS? 

If considerations of mere personal profit are 
sufficient to make the best of us foster war, which 
the peace fanatics esteem wholesale murder, it is 
strange that the inventors and manufacturers of 
drugs and medicines, the proprietors of drug- 
stores, and the medical profession and under- 
takers, do not form a league and co-operate in 
spreading infectious diseases, in order to create 
a greater demand for their wares and for their 
services. 

Of course, the reason may be that they have not 
yet thought of it, and it may be wrong for me to 
suggest the thing to them. Still, it is queer that 
it has not been suggested to them by what the 
pacifists have said concerning the conduct of our 
army and navy officers and of the inventors and 
manufacturers of war-materials. 

Let us see what the facts actually are : 

The inventors and manufacturers of war-ma- 
terials, and our army and navy officers, by virtue 
of the study and experience that qualify them for 
their business or profession better than others, 
are also qualified better than others to judge what 
are our actual needs for national defense. 

If the manufacturers of war-materials, and our 
army and navy men, are to be convicted of inciting 
war on the evidence that by so doing they create 
a demand for their services, then necessarily 
others benefited by a like demand may be con- 
victed on the same evidence. 

[ 251 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

Mr. Andrew Carnegie himself is the greatest of 
all American armorers. He it was who intro- 
duced the Bessemer steel process into the United 
States, from which all our gun-makers and all our 
armament-makers have greatly benefited. It is 
his name and that of Herr Krupp which Neptune 
reads graven in the walls of fighting-ships. He 
•still draws an income from his interests in the 
great armor-making steel corporation — an annual 
income big enough to pay the combined salaries 
of all the four thousand officers of the United 
States Army. 

Truly, if the discovery of room for a motive 
proves both the motive and the crime, and is suf- 
ficient to convict these four thousand men of being 
willing to sell their souls in order to raise their 
salaries a few dollars, Mr. Carnegie himself is at 
least open to suspicion. 

Likewise, the varied and many institutions — 
incubators of the doves of peace — ^born of the 
great armor-maker's generosity, which continue 
to be his beneficiaries, cannot escape the suspicion 
that taints their pedigree. 

Even the leading man — the principal star on 
the stage where Uncle Sammy unter Alles is being 
played — Dr. David Starr Jordan, is paid from the 
Carnegie Peace Foundation with money equally 
tainted by the sweaty hands of the grimy men who 
are forging armor-plate in the Smoky City. 

But we all know that Mr. Carnegie is above any 

[252] 



A DANGEROUS CRIMINAL CLASS? 

such suspicion. We know that the pacifist method 
of reasoning must be false. 

The education of our army and navy officers 
teaches them not alone military science, but also 
national devotion and personal honor. Devotion 
to duty is necessary in order to keep them in the 
service, under the altogether inadequate pay they 
receive. The pay of the American army and navy 
officers is smaller, in proportion to their knowl- 
edge and the value of their services, than that of 
any other class of men in the country. If every 
army and navy officer should abandon the service 
for a position in civil life when he could get a 
raise of wages for so doing, there would not be 
a corporaPs guard left in the service. 

Whenever a public work is placed in charge of 
an army or navy officer, there is no suh-rosa 
rake-off, or diwy with civilian contractors. 
There is absolutely no graft of any kind in their 
service, and the government is sure of getting the 
maximum amount of work for the minimum cost. 
Not one cent of graft has fallen upon the palms 
either of Colonel Goethals or of any other army 
officer in the whole course of construction of that 
mighty work — the Panama Canal. New York City 
tried to get Colonel Goethals as Police Commis- 
sioner. He has received scores of offers of posi- 
tions in civil life at many times his present salary, 
because of the military capacity and honor that 
make the Goethals sort of service very valuable. 

[253] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

I know many army and navy men intimately. 
I have had opportunities of hearing their off- 
guard conversations and interchange of ideas on 
all manner of subjects, and have thereby been en- 
abled to see their character revealed to the naked 
soul, and I have never yet discovered any other 
attitude or tendency among them than the emula- 
tion of exactly that type of honor, efficiency, and 
manhood which is Colonel Goethals'. 

I cannot award this same high praise to the 
politicians I have known. 

An army or navy officer always drives just as 
close a bargain as he can on behalf of the govern- 
ment when doing business with civilians, although 
the economics of the transaction is of no personal 
concern to him. 

When a politician makes a bargain, his first con- 
sideration is: ** Where do I come in!" His next 
consideration is: ** Where does the party come 
inr* Duty to the government is a minor consid- 
eration. 

It is the demand for a thing that leads to its 
invention, just as it is the demand for a thing that 
leads to its manufacture. The demand must pre- 
cede the production. 

When the inventor designs a gun, or invents a 
new explosive, he does not simultaneously try to 
invent ways and means of creating a market. He 
may, on the contrary, be inspired with a spirit 
of patriotism, and feel that in the event of war 

[254] 



A DANGEROUS CRIMINAL CLASS? 

his work will be of signal service to his country, 
both by killing his country's enemies and by sav- 
ing the lives of his own people. 

The manufacturers of war-materials are much 
more likely to be actuated by honorable motives, 
and to make large sacrifices from a spirit of patri- 
otism, than are the manufacturers of soap, agri- 
cultural machinery, or automobiles. 

The builders of Ericsson's Monitor were not 
able to get the government either to approve or 
to back the enterprise. They were, however, for- 
tunately inspired by a high spirit of patriotism, 
and by a strong belief in Ericsson's invention; 
consequently, they built it at their own expense. 
It was completed just in the nick of time. The 
terrible Merrimac appeared before the Monitor 
was quite ready. She could laugh at forts, and 
the projectiles from the guns of our wooden navy 
glanced off her mailed sides like raindrops off a 
duck's back. Whether she would be able to run 
up the Potomac and bombard Washington, was a 
question only of the depth of water. 

The little coterie of bureaucrats in Washington, 
who had ridiculed the fantastic innovation of 
Ericsson, were now on Uneasy Street, and sent 
urgent appeals for the Monitor to be made ready 
and sent to Hampton Eoads with all speed. The 
peculiar craft did arrive on the morning of the 
second day of the naval fight. The result is one 

[ 255 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

of the good stories of history — a story that has 
never been quite equaled in fiction. 

The Monitor had not yet been accepted by 
the government when she fought the Merrimac; 
she had not yet received the government's ap- 
proval. 

A country Eeuben, who saw a giraffe for the 
first time at a circus, looked the animal over, and, 
finding that it did not conform to his ideas of what 
an animal ought to be, remarked, ^^By gum, there 
ain't no sich critter!" Likewise, the naval ex- 
perts at Washington did not believe that there 
could be any such fighting-ship. After that fight, 
however, the Monitor was quickly purchased, and 
hurried orders were given for more Monitors. 

The patriotism and pluck of the warship- 
builders saved the country. 

The pacifists are strongly urging what they 
term the nationalization of all manufacture of 
war-materials; that is to say, that all such ma- 
terials should be made at government plants. 
Their object is to have the work done by disinter- 
ested persons, who will not be tempted to promote 
war in order to make a market for those materials. 
By admirable inconsistency, the pacifists would, 
in so doing, place the manufacture of war- 
materials in the hands of army and navy officers, 
whom they pronounce the most pernicious of all 
promoters of war. 

Before Congress acts upon the suggestion of 

[ 256 ] 



A DANGEROUS CRIMINAL CLASS? 

the pacifists to nationalize the manufacture of all 
war-materials, it would be well to see what would 
have happened in the past, had the thing been 
done sooner. We can judge from that concerning 
the advisability of adopting the measure now. 

If it had been adopted at the time of the Civil 
War, Ericsson's Monitor never would have been 
built, because its building depended upon private 
personal patriotism and private enterprise. 

If the measure had been adopted twenty-five 
years ago, then naturally, during that period, pri- 
vate invention and private enterprise would have 
been eliminated, and the government would not 
have profited from civilian genius and energy. 
Let us see, then, what private invention and pri- 
vate enterprise have done for the government for 
the past quarter-century, since the advent of 
smokeless powder. 

Colonel E. G. Buckner, vice-president of the 
du Pont Powder Company, in an article in Har- 
per's WeeTdy, of June 27, 1914, places the credit 
for the four most important inventions in the de- 
velopment of smokeless powder — first, to Vieille, 
of France, who produced gun-cotton; second, to 
Mendeleeff, of Eussia, who told us how to colloid 
it; third, to Francis G. du Pont, who eliminated 
danger in the manufacture; and, fourth, to Hud- 
son Maxim, who invented the multi-perfo- 
rated grain that gave absolute control over the 
burniQg. 

[257] 



^DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

It will be seen tliat two of the most important 
steps in the development of smokeless powder 
were made by American civilian inventors. The 
alcohol replacement invention of Francis G. du 
Pont and my own invention of the multi-per- 
forated grain, rendered possible the use of a col- 
loid of pure nitro-cellulose as a smokeless cannon- 
powder. It would be absolutely impossible suc- 
cessfully to make a pure nitro-cellulose cannon- 
powder without these two inventions. If the 
manufacture of smokeless powder had been na- 
tionalized twenty-five years ago, this government 
would not stand, as it stands today, ahead of all 
other governments, in the excellence of its smoke- 
less powder. 

When the government first ordered a pure 
nitro-cellulose powder, large quantities of solvents 
were consumed in its preparation. Private manu- 
facturers introduced new processes to overcome 
this difficulty, resulting in a material reduction in 
the cost of the powder, which has already effected 
a saving to the government of rdore than 
$2,000,000. 

It is a peculiarity of smokeless powder that, 
regardless of however stable it may be when first 
made, it gradually begins to decompose after long 
standing, which, until recently, necessitated its de- 
struction. Several years ago, however, Mr. 
Francis I. du Pont, son of the Francis G. du Pont 
above-mentioned, invented a process for the suc- 

[258] 



A DANGEROUS CRIMINAL CLASSY 

cessful reworking of smokeless powder that has 
begun to decompose, at a mere fraction of the 
original cost, making it just as good as ever. This 
invention alone will hereafter save the govern- 
ment more than a million dollars a year. 

When the new^ army rifle was developed, it was 
found that the smokeless powder then used by the 
army, containing nitro-glycerin, was so erosive as 
to destroy the accuracy of the arm when only 
1,600 rounds had been fired. The government ob- 
tained from abroad some smokeless powder, which 
enabled 3,000 rounds to be fired before the gun 
was destroyed, but after that number of rounds, 
the rifling was practically obliterated. 

A private manufacturer invented a new smoke- 
less rifle-powder, with process and apparatus 
for its manufacture. With this powder, it is now 
possible to fire as high as 20,000 rounds before 
the accuracy of the gun is destroyed. This inven- 
tion easily multiplies the life of the army rifle by 
six. As the army rifle will now last six times as 
long by the use of this powder as it would by 
the use of any other powder, the value of the in- 
vention to the government is by far the chief value 
of the gun itself. Consequently, it is estimated 
that this invention alone represents a value for 
the guns that the government now has on hand 
of more than $15,000,000. 

Not only does our small-arms powder effect a 
great saving in the wear and tear of our shoulder- 

[ 259 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

rifles, but also our pure nitro-cellulose cannon- 
powder effects a similar saving in the life of our 
big guns. Our big guns, using pure nitro-cellulose 
powder, last, with equal accuracy, more than twice 
as long as British guns, which use cordite. 

It will be seen from the foregoing considera- 
tions and figures that private genius and private 
enterprise alone have saved the government very 
many millions of dollars. Of course, it may be 
argued that, since guns and ammunition and all 
kinds of military implements and engines have 
been perfected, there is not now room for civilian 
inventors to be so useful to the government during 
the next twenty-five years as they have been in 
the past twenty-five. 

A similar attitude of the average mind would 
have existed had the same question been raised 
twenty-five years ago. When our Patent Office 
was first established, the Commissioner of Patents 
predicted that within fifty years everything pos- 
sible of invention would have been invented and 
that then the Patent Office would have to be abol- 
ished for lack of business. The number of inven- 
tions received by the Patent Office, however, has 
rapidly increased, and is still rapidly increasing. 
More inventions are received now each year at 
the Patent Office than were received during the 
first fifty years of its existence. The reason for 
this is that every invention, either directly or 
indirectly, creates a demand for other inventions. 

[260] 



A DANGEROUS CRIMINAL CLASSY 

The inventor is still working in virgin soil, and 
the room for invention is infinite. 
N If the manufacture of war-materials were to be 
nationalized, not only would the government rob 
itself of the aid of large quasi-government manu- 
factories, but also it would rob itself of the bene- 
fits of the inventive genius of the whole people. 
The value of that genius may be approximated 
by recalling what citizen inventions have done 
since the outbreak of the American Civil 
War. 

Breech-loading guns of all kinds, the percussion 
cap, cartridges for small-arms, fixed ammunition 
for quick-firing guns, the breech mechanism for 
all guns, the built-up gun, the great improvements 
in steel manufacture, the revolving turret and the 
Monitor type of fighting-ship, the steam turbine, 
the internal-combustion engine, all of the great 
inventions in smokeless powders and high ex- 
plosives, and their adaptability to use in ordnance, 
the submarine torpedo-boat, the self-propelled tor- 
pedo, the aeroplane and the dirigible, and any 
number of other inventions indispensable to mod- 
ern warfare, have been the invention of civilians. 
Of course, army and navy officers have invented 
a great many important things themselves, and 
have rendered great service in the development 
of civilian inventions. But it must be remembered 
that army and navy officers constitute but a very 
small part of the population. Even were army 

[261] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

and navy men ten times more proficient in the 
invention of war-materials than civilian inventors, 
the number and value of civilian naval and mili- 
tary inventions would preponderate enormously 
over those of government officers. 

We have been assured all along by the peace 
sophists that, if war should come, the great Amer- 
ican genius would rise to the occasion and spring 
to our rescue, with all manner of destructive con- 
trivances, capable of annihilating armies and 
sweeping fleets of fighting-ships off the seas. 

If the beautiful nationalization plan of the peace 
sophists, however, were to be carried out, the 
great American genius would get no opportunity 
to fructify the prophesied militant cataclysmic 
ogerism to the discomfiture of our enemies. 

No other government has nationalized the man- 
ufacture of armaments and war-materials to the 
exclusion of private manufacturers. On the con- 
trary, other governments strongly encourage pri- 
vate manufacture, for they realize the vast impor- 
tance of drawing upon the inventive genius of the 
whole people, and of enlisting private energy, pri- 
vate enterprise, and private capital in government 
work. 

The French government for more than a hun- 
dred years has made all its own gunpowder, but 
its chief gun-works are private enterprises. Pos- 
sibly, if the French smokeless powder had been 
perfected by private enterprise to meet govern- 

[262] 



A DANGEROUS CRIMINAL CLASS? 

ment requirements, those requirements would 
have been more exacting with private manufac- 
turers than with government manufacturers, and 
the battleships Jena and La Liberie would not 
have been blown up by the spontaneous combus- 
tion of bad gunpowder. If this government were 
to nationalize the manufacture of its war-materi- 
als, we know, by what has been done in the past, 
through private enterprise and private inventive 
genius, that the government would suffer enor- 
mously. 

In this era of Congressional investigations, it 
would be well to have a government inquiry made 
as to whether or not there should be a new classi- 
fication of acts of treason. It should be inquired 
whether or not, in time of peace, public preach- 
ments should be allowed advocating the disband- 
ing of our Army and the destruction of our Navy 
— acts which in time of war might be interpreted 
as treason, and the offenders backed up against a 
wall and shot. It should be inquired whether or 
not foreign emissaries, and possibly spies, have 
not for years been collaborating with American 
advocates of disarmament. It should be inquired 
whether or not the Washington lobby that has 
been operating against governmental appropria- 
tions for the Army and Navy, has not received 
foreign support. If these things have not been 
done by representatives of foreign countries, with 
such a wide-open opportunity, then the diplomats 

I 263 1 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

and strategists of foreign nations ought to be sent 
to a kindergarten for instruction. Could anything 
be more likely than that foreign Powers should 
possess the sagacity to grasp such an opportunity 
to weaken our defenses f 



[264 J 



CHAPTER Xn 

THE GOOD AND EVIL OF PEACE 
AND OF WAR 

" All states are in perpetual war with all. For that which we 
call peace is no more than merely a name, whilst in reality Nature 
has set all communities in an unproclaimed but everlasting war 
against each other." Plato. 

SO much has been said based on ignorance and 
false premise about the good and evil of 
war, and the good and evil of peace, that a 
few cold, relevant facts will not be out of place 
here. 

In stating these facts, the writer is standing 
neither as sponsor for war nor as sponsor for 
peace. He is not posing as a judge qualified to 
pass sentence on peace or on war, but merely as 
one who understands the subject sufficiently to 
throw some new light upon it. In bearing witness 
to the cruelty and mercilessness of Nature, the 
writer assumes no responsibility for what Nature 
has done ; he was not consulted. In bearing wit- 
ness to the evils and benefits of war, and the evils 
and benefits of peace, the writer does not thereby 
either palliate the evils, or stand responsible for 

[ 265 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

them; neither does he assume credit for their 
benefits and blessings. He realizes, however, that 
the bearer of bad tidings is associated with the ill- 
feeling they inspire, although he may be wholly 
innocent of the ill. 

While too much stress cannot be laid upon the 
horrors of war and the individual suffering in- 
curred thereby, still it is not just to lay to the 
account of war or militarism every ill that flesh is 
heir to, as is done by many of the pacifi-maniacs. 
As a matter of fact, it would be as justifiable to 
attack peace because of the evils that develop in 
times of peace. "We do not, however, on that ac- 
count conceive peace to be a misfortune, but a 
blessing. 

While our pacifists promote war by their teach- 
ings, they declaim against war and picture its 
horrors and calamitous results. One would natu- 
rally suppose that, appreciating what a terrible 
thing war is, they would take the most scientific 
and dependable means of safeguarding this coun- 
try against such a calamity; but, as a matter of 
fact, they are doing everything in their power to 
abolish the one means that can safeguard us 
against w^ar. With consistent inconsistency, they 
place the blame for war on the advocates of ade- 
quate armaments — the true peace-advocates and 
peace-makers and enemies of war, who are fore- 
fending us against war. The advocacy of arma- 
ments is construed by them as the advocacy of 

[ 266 ] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

war; measures for peace are confounded with 
measures for breaching the peace. 

A curious phase of the matter is that many 
friends of armaments themselves make a similar 
mistake, and think that in defending armaments 
they are called upon to defend war also. As a 
matter of fact, war has no defense, except as a 
last resort. But when there is no other way, and 
when the maintenance of peace would be a greater 
calamity than war, then war is to be recommended 
as the lesser evil. It is, nevertheless, undeniably 
an evil, though a necessary one, just as a surgical 
operation is a necessary evil — but one which, if 
successful, results in such good as far to outweigh 
the evil. 

The peace sophists tell us that there has never 
been a good war or a bad peace; that always in 
war the best specimens of manhood have been 
slain, leaving the weak and unfit for breeding pur- 
poses. They tell us that the Napoleonic wars low- 
ered the stature of the entire French nation by 
two inches. They tell us also that during all past 
ages war for plunder has been the principal busi- 
ness of mankind. 

The following arraignment of war by General 
Hiram M. Chittenden is a very fair sample of this 
method of reasoning : 

^^Both in its restriction upon marriage and in 
its destruction of life war thus destroys the most 

[267] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

precious seed and leaves the inferior from which 
to propagate. In proportion as wars are long con- 
tinued, and draw heavily upon the population, 
these deleterious effects are apparent. The cam- 
paigns of Napoleon were a mighty drain upon the 
vigor of the French people. It has been held that 
the average stature of the French was thereby 
diminished by more than an inch. How much 
their intellectual and moral stature was shrunken 
by that debauchery of crime, who can say? The 
decadence of the Roman people was due more to 
the waste of its best blood in war than to the 
causes commonly accepted. War reverses the 
process of natural selection and, instead of pro- 
ducing the survival of the fittest, produces the 
survival of the most unfit,* ^ 

According to statistics of the pacifists, from the 
year 1496 b.c. to the year 1861 a.d. — a period of 
3,357 years — there were 227 years of peace and 
3,130 years of war — thirteen years of war for 
every year of peace. Now, if what we are told 
about the degenerative effects of war is true, since 
we know that war has been prevalent in all ages, 
the natural conclusion is, what a lot of rapscal- 
lions we must be ! If war, instead of tending to 
secure the survival of the fit, secures the survival 
of the unfit, then after a thousand centuries of 
strife we must be signally unfit. 

The trouble with such statistics is that, instead 

[268] 



^Jl!» 



GOOD AND EVIL 

of leading us toward the truth, they lead us into 
error. It may be perfectly true that for every 
year of general peace there have been thirteen 
years when there was a war somewhere on the 
earth; but this does not imply in the least that 
peace was not more general than w^as war, even 
during those thirteen years when there was a 
war. We must remember that the history of na- 
tions does not tell us much about the affairs of 
the people in times of peace ; it is their wars that 
have made history. 

As we look back through time at the large num- 
ber of wars, we clump them together in per- 
spective. We place the wars, as it were, all on 
the map at once, instead of placing them years 
and centuries apart. 

Just as there is always in human life more joy 
than sorrow, more pleasure than pain, more good 
than ill; so, in tlie history of the world, there 
has been more of peace and prosperity than there 
has been of war and calamity. 

John Euskin possessed the rare ability to per- 
ceive truth that pointed one way, while his feel- 
ings pointed in the opposite direction. Although 
he had an emotional nature and a highly artistic 
temperament, he was still a man of so broad views, 
with so comprehensive a mind at the other end of 
the optic nerve, that he could ratiocinate in spite 
of his emotions. The following is what he had 
to say on war : 

[269] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 



<e 



All the pure and nohle arts of peace are 
founded on war; no great art ever rose on earth 
hut among a nation of soldiers. There is no great 
art possible to a nation hut that which is based on 
battle. When I tell you that war is the foundation 
of all the arts, I mean also that it is the founda- 
tion of all the high virtues and faculties of men. 
It was very strange for me to discover this, and 
very dreadful, hut I saw it to he quite an undeni- 
able fact. The common notion that peace and the 
virtues of civil life flourished together I found to 
he utterly untenable. Peace and the vices of civil 
life only flourish together. We talk of peace and 
learning, of peace and plenty, of peace and civiliza- 
tion; but I found that these are not the luords that 
the Muse of History coupled together: that on her 
lips the ivords were peace and sensuality , peace 
and selfishness, peace and death. I found in brief 
that all great natio7is learned their truth of word 
and strength of thought in war; that they were 
nourished in war and wasted in peace; taught by 
war and deceived by peace; trained by war and be- 
trayed by peace; in a word, that they were horn in 
war and expired in peace,' \ 

We must not conclude, from the above quota- 
tion from Kuskin, that he was an advocate of 
brutality versus humanity, for he was not. The 
thought he meant to convey was simply this — that 
only a supreme trial, a supreme responsibility, 

[270] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

where country, life itself, and that which is dearer 
than life — home — are staked on the issue, can 
bring out the highest virtues. The struggle for in- 
alienable human rights, whose observance is free- 
dom, has been the greatest influence to stimulate 
the genius and the virtues of men, and these things 
have been accomplished, and could only have been 
accomplished, by war. 

The humanity of Rusldn is well brought out in 
the following quotation : 

^' . . . Depend upon it, all work must he done at 
last, not in a disorderly, scrambling , doggish way, 
hut in an ordered, soldierly, human way — a law- 
ful or 'loyaV way. Men are enlisted for the labor 
that Mils — the labor of war: they are counted, 
trained, fed, dressed, and praised for that. Teach 
the plough exercise as carefully as you do the 
sword exercise, and let the officers of troops of life 
he held as much gentlemen as the officers of 
troops of death; and all is done: hut neither this, 
nor any other right thing, can he accomplished — 
you can't even see your way to it — unless, first of 
all, both servant and master are resolved that, 
come what will of it, they will do each other jus- 
tice.'^ 

Ralph "Waldo Emerson held the same opinion 
about war as that held by John Ruskin. He 
quoted and approved the old Greek, Heraclitus, 

[271] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

who said, * ' War is the father of all things. ' ' After 
quoting this expression, Emerson said, **We of 
this day can repeat it as a political and social 
truth." Also, he said, **War passes the power of 
all chemical solvents, breaking up the old co- 
hesions, and allowing the atoms of society to take 
a new order." 

As a matter of fact, social order, in time of 
peace, like a cultivated field, settles and solidifies, 
and it must be broken down into subsoil, to sup- 
port a new and vigorous growth. The breaking by 
plough and dynamite, uprooting and submerging 
all undesirable growth, is rewarded by healthy and 
vigorous crops of a desirable growth. 

The very privations that have to be endured by 
large numbers of persons during a great war, 
stimulate economy, invention, and extraordinary 
endeavor, and serve to teach many useful lessons 
and to impart valuable experiential knowledge, 
which is applied both during the war, and, with 
greater advantage, when the war is over. When a 
country is at war, all its industries are not ren- 
dered stagnant or idle, but many of them are 
stimulated to extraordinary effort when cut off 
from import by blockade. 

The legend about the stature of the French na- 
tion being lowered two inches as a result of kill- 
ing off so many of the best men of France dur- 
ing the Napoleonic wars, is a very plausible one, 

[ 272 ] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

and one that has been made great use of by the 
pacifists. But no one has thought to inquire 
whether or not, during the past century, the aver- 
age stature of the Spaniards and the Italians also 
has been lowered. Perhaps, if we should inquire, 
we might learn that the color of the hair and eyes 
and skin of the French had somewhat darkened 
during that period. We might learn the truth 
that the effect upon the stature and the color of 
the eyes and skin and hair was mainly due to an- 
other kind of warfare — that of the southern blood 
of the Latin against the blood of the blond Norse- 
man. We might learn that in Italy, Spain, and 
France, the posterity of the Norse giants, who 
long ago overran and conquered those countries, 
did not thrive well there, but slowly died down. 
We might learn that in those lands the blood of 
the blond is gradually overcome by the blood of 
the brunette; and that, as the blond races are 
larger in stature, the stature of the mixed Latin 
races is lowered in proportion to the disappear- 
ance of the blond type. The ancient Koman was 
much shorter in stature than even the present 
Italian or Frenchman. 

Warfare has always subjected the weak, the 
puny, the poor, the ill, the indigent, and the incom- 
petent to privations, trials, and strains of such 
severity that they have died in large numbers. 
They have not been so able as normal persons to 
escape the sword and to resist famine and disease ; 

[ 273 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

consequently, fewer of them have survived than 
of the more fit. 

It is, however, argued by the peace sophists, 
that in modern warfare only the most able-bodied 
men are selected for military duty, and also that 
the weak and unfit who remain at home are not 
subjected to the same exterminating influences as 
formerly. 

As a matter of fact, comparing the results of 
war today with those in former years, we find 
the percentage of deaths among the incompetent 
stay-at-homes far larger than among the soldiers 
at the front. 

It is true that medical science secures the sur- 
vival of a much larger percentage of stay-at-home 
incompetents than in former years, but medical 
science saves also a much larger proportion of 
those injured in battle than formerly, so that the 
ratio of survival between the fit and the incom- 
petent is today in favor of the fit. The conditions 
that tend to secure the survival of the fittest are 
even more effective today than they were in old- 
time wars. 

The unpleasant truth should be realized that in- 
vading armies must, with other luxuries, have 
women. As a result, they leave a large progeny — 
wrens in the nests of the doves of peace. Hence, 
inasmuch as soldiers are the pick of the manhood 
of their country, they are likely to do about as 
much toward securing the survival of the fit in an 

[274] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

enemy's country as they would have in their own 
country. 

There is another very important consideration, 
which is that war is a great mixer of races, and 
that usually mixed types benefit enormously from 
their compound blood. 

Furthermore, the mingling of races and peoples 
has in all times served greatly to spread knowl- 
edge of one another, and they have always profited 
largely from the mingled knowledge. Soldiers 
visiting distant lands have brought home acquaint- 
ance with new arts and sciences and broader ideas 
of international usefulness. The soldiers of the 
North, who marched with Sherman through 
Georgia to the sea, returned years afterward and 
built cotton mills, iron foundries, and machine- 
shops all over the South, and stimulated the South 
with Northern energy and Northern capital. 

"We know that the inhabitants of the earth are 
constantly growing more fit; consequently, we 
know that they cannot be growing constantly more 
unfit, due to the degenerative influence of war. 
The history of nations is a history of wars ; conse- 
quently we know as untrue the contention of the 
peace sophists that war secures the survival of 
the unfit. We know that exactly the opposite must 
be true; that war secures the survival of the 
fit. 

There is yet another thing of which the peace 
sophists have never thought, and could not be 

[275] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

expected to think— the tremendous self-saving 
potentiality of the race. 

As I have pointed out elsewhere, Nature seems 
to care little for individuals, but everything for 
a race or species ; consequently. Nature has fore- 
fended herself by very ample measures to insure 
the survival of the fit. 

If every able-bodied man in the world today 
were to be slain, and only the weak and puny left, 
although the injury would be incalculable and 
would make the whole race stagger, still the next 
generation of men would be almost as able-bodied 
and as fit as the present generation. Let us see 
why: It is because of that great potentiality — 
atavism. Children inherit not only directly f ronj 
their parents, but their inheritance harks back to 
grandfather, great-grandfather, and even to re- 
mote ancestry. 

Just as a stream of water burdened with im- 
purities is self -purifying when it suns itself on the 
bright pebbles and on grass and moss that web and 
tangle it, so life is self-purifying and self-regen- 
erative. Nature is constantly reaching higher and 
higher. The acquired characteristics of parents 
tend to become instinctive in their children. In- 
stinct is largely inherited experience. 

Nature strives to protect herself against degen- 
eracy. Though bad conduct on the part of parents 
harmfully affects the child, yet such influences are 
less potent than those that are regenerative. If 

[276] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

this were not true, Nature 's ends would not be so 
well secured. 

There is in all animal organisms a certain innate 
power of resistance to germs of disease, and there 
is likewise in man a similar power of resistance 
to degeneracy. 

The forces that operate to protect the individual 
operate also to shield the species by affording pro- 
tection against evil inheritance. 

Abnormal types are not always representative 
of diseased or degenerate conditions; other con- 
siderations must be weighed. Even some crimi- 
nals may be atavic examples of a class of indi- 
viduals who were better suited to live under the 
savage conditions that existed many generations 
ago. 

Nature has resources for her protection far be- 
yond our ken. Some of them have, by our inquiry, 
been discovered. We have discovered that not 
only do we immunize ourselves to withstand re- 
peated attacks from the same disease, but also our 
children to some extent inherit that immunity. 

When syphilis, the most abominable disease that 
ever afflicted mankind, was brought to Europe by 
the sailors of Columbus, the Europeans, possess- 
ing no immunity against it, died by hundreds of 
thousands. It afflicted equally all classes, from 
peasant to king. This disease among the West In- 
dian tribes was slow-moving, and comparatively 
mild; but it became exceedingly virulent, rapid, 

[277] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

and almost always fatal, in tlie blood of the un- 
immunized people of the Old World. This dis- 
ease alone has been more harmful to the human 
race than all the wars of the world since the dawn 
of human history. 

Although today the Old-World races have ac- 
quired considerable immunity to that affliction and 
although science has discovered a rational and 
comparatively successful treatment, it is still the 
greatest single degenerative influence with which 
the race has to contend. Its evil potency is greatly 
enhanced by the facility with which it weds al- 
coholism, and breeds tuberculosis, cancer, and 
paranoia. 

The old pioneers sowed the western continent 
and the islands of the sea with the germs of small- 
pox and measles. Smallpox, terrible anywhere, 
was tenfold more so with the newly discovered 
peoples. Measles was more fatal with the Indians 
than smallpox with the Europeans. Only re- 
cently, in Alaska, whole communities have been 
wiped out by the measles. Even chicken-pox, 
harmless with us, was nearly always fatal to the 
inhabitants of the Pacific Islands. 

The races, however, gradually but surely, 
developed immunity, and the great world-scourges 
are now largely robbed of their terrors. Similarly 
has mankind developed powers of recuperation 
that largely tend to immunization against such de- 
generative effects as are of war. 

[278] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

When a large limb is lopped from a tree, the 
mother-stem puts out a new shoot, and grows an- 
other strong limb in its place; similarly, when 
limbs are lopped from the human family tree, new 
limbs are stimulated to growth. This peculiarity 
of living things is strangely manifested in certain 
species, particularly among the lower orders of 
animals. Certain animals have no way of seeking 
self-preservation except by breeding in such large 
numbers as to supply the appetites of all enemies, 
and glut the demand. A big salmon sometimes 
lays a gallon of small eggs, often numbering as 
high as 27,000,000. Certain species of polyp are 
provided no means whatever, either by speed or 
powers of resistance, to defend themselves, but 
they breed so rapidly that they cannot all be 
eaten. 

Now that we have defended war against the 
charge of securing the survival of the unfit, and 
have proved that, on the contrary, war has, dur- 
ing all the ages, been instrumental in securing 
the survival of the fit, let us, without presuming 
against peace, see whether or not peace has a 
blameless record. 

The long periods of peace during the past cen- 
tury have allowed the peoples time and oppor- 
tunity to acquire wealth and luxury, and to de- 
velop peculiar tastes, especially along emotional 
lines. . . . Modern fiction is a universal love 

[ 279 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

story. Art is largely a portrayal of sentimen- 
tality. 

In olden times, when human suffering in every 
guise, born of war, was very common, the appeals 
of the poor, the weak, and the infirm were not 
much heeded, for there were ever present such 
severe and exacting concerns as to command the 
attention and to absorb the resources of the 
people. 

In time of peace less rigid economy is practised 
than in time of war. Dangers and hardships, 
which are the concomitants of war, have been 
found in all ages better formative influences for 
making hardy, successful men than a life of ease, 
comfort, and luxury. Consequently, in time of 
peace there is a far more preponderant tendency 
toward degeneracy and national decay than there 
is in time of war, in spite of the large numbers 
of fine specimens of manhood that are killed in 
war. 

When Cyrus the Great, with his hardy moun- 
taineers, had conquered the peace-loving, comfort- 
loving people of the lowlands, he told his soldiers 
that they must not make their homes in the low- 
lands, but must return to their mountain fast- 
nesses, because if they settled to a life of ease and 
luxury, they would become unwarlike, effeminate, 
and degenerate, like the lowlanders they had con- 
quered and enslaved, and later would themselves 
be conquered and enslaved by other mountaineers 

[280] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

inured to privations and hardships, who would 
descend upon them. 
Witness the wisdom of Herodotus, who said ; 

'^It is the settled appointment of Nature that 
soft soils should breed soft men, and that the some 
land should never he famous for the excellence of 
its fruit and for the vigor of its inhabitants,'* 

Montesquieu said: 



ti 



The barrenness of the soil makes men indus- 
trious, sober, hard-working, courageous, and war- 
like, for they must obtain by their own exertion 
thnt tvhich the earth denies them, whilst the fer- 
tility of a country produces in them love of ease, 
indolence, and a sense of cautious self-preserva- 
tion/' 

The ancient Spartans in time of peace volun- 
tarily subjected themselves to every privation and 
hardship necessary to keep them in prime condi- 
tion for instant war. 

Nature is never moved by pity. Nature is not a 
sentimentalist. The earthquake shock is no re- 
specter of persons. When a ship founders, the 
angry waves of the sea show no mercy to the 
drowning, and have no pity for those struggling 
to survive in the life-boats. The arctic airs of 
winter are as savage to those exposed to them as 

[281] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

are the teeth of wolves. All animal life on the 
earth must constantly contend with both the de- 
vouring elements of Nature and the devouring 
greed of other animal life. 

Pity is a child of the imagination, and is, for 
that reason, a peculiarly human attribute. It 
is a very noble trait, and is of material aid in 
greatening mutual human usefulness. Neverthe- 
less, no one thinks for a moment of blaming any 
of the lower animals for their appetites and pas- 
sions ; they are understood to be normal and neces- 
sary. Similarly, all our normal appetites and 
passions are necessary. Considered in the broad, 
as natural attributes, there are no such things as 
bad normal emotions and passions ; it is only when 
they become perverted by degeneracy or abuse 
that they are evil. 

The passion of pity may be perverted and 
abused just as the sex appetite or the appetite 
for food and drink. 

If human pity had dominated the council at the 
creation of the world, the result would have been 
infinite injury, because none of the higher orders 
of animals, even man himself, could have been 
developed. In short, there would have been no in- 
telligent beings on earth. 

During periods of peace, a large number of per- 
sons, moved by pity for the indigent, the halt, the 
lame, the blind, extend to them the alleviating hand 
of charity. Philanthropy finds favor in the public 

C282] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

eye, and charity becomes a cheap and easy means 
of courting public opinion. The philanthropist 
with means for gratifying his passion of pity, or 
the ambitious aspirant for public favor with cash 
to invest in public opinion, finds himself soon sur- 
rounded with a multitude of itchy-palmy hands to 
help him spend his money to buy what he is after, 
and at* the same time obtain profit for themselves. 
Consequently, objects of charity become oppor- 
tunities to be prized and made the most of. 
Charity organizations are supported both by well- 
meaning sympathetic persons and by publicity- 
purchasing persons and their press-agents. 

Many an ambitious politician or social climber 
finds it profitable to become a patron of some sup- 
posedly deserving charity. Recently, some one 
inquired into the methods of a New York charity 
organization, and found that the sum paid in 
salaries to the various officers of the society was 
more than twice the amount actually expended 
in charity. But those who donated the money 
got what they paid for; the hangers-on of the 
society got what they wanted, and thereby les- 
sened the actual harm that the money would have 
done had it all reached its supposed objects. 

While a limited amount of well-directed chari- 
table effort may be for the general good, still by 
far the larger part of promiscuous charity does 
harm. Broadly speaking, charity of all kinds is 
wrong in principle, because the misfortunes of 

[ 283 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

the unfit are a part of natural processes for their 
elimination, and anything done by charity to de- 
feat the decrees of Nature is wrong. 

These are some of the responsibilities for which 
we friends of peace must stand, if we succeed in 
preventing war by preparedness against war. 

Those who are advocating the abolition of 
armaments, and are thereby fostering war, have 
not this responsibility; for, if they are success- 
ful in what they are teaching and doing, the pretty 
constant warfare that will prevail among the 
great nations during the next century will cure 
much of the hypersentimentalism that finds ex- 
pression in large degenerative charities ; and these 
charities will be swept away under the tread of 
marching armies. Whereas, if we succeed, by our 
advocacy, in securing adequate armaments, and 
thereby maintain enduring peace, then nothing 
can prevent our great promiscuous charities from 
continuing to secure the survival of the unfit with 
the continuous pollution of the blood-stream of 
the race from their degenerate blood through in- 
termarriage with normal persons. 

The arrestation of the self -purifying processes 
of Nature which are intended to clarify the blood 
of the race, by breeding the unfit and turning them 
back upon the race, is like turning the sewage of 
a city into its water supply. 

If all incompetents — the hopelessly diseased and 
degenerate — were to be exterminated, it would be 

[284] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

a very good thing for the race. Such methods 
have actually been practised in the past. At one 
time, when ancient Babylon was besieged, all the 
aged and diseased were murdered ; and in ancient 
Greece, deformed or diseased children were 
killed at birth. But the trouble with this method 
is that no men possessing the human qualities 
rendering them worthy of survival could be found 
among us to do the wholesale executions. The 
mere possession of the inhuman qualities neces- 
sary to carry out the wholesale slaughter would 
elect the executioners themselves for slaughter. 
Man cannot be pitiless, like Nature, without him- 
self becoming unworthy of pity, and, consequently, 
unworthy of survival. 

Human survival must be co-operative. Human 
reproduction depends somewhat on lovability. 
According to the law of natural selection, a lov- 
able person is selected rather than an unlovable 
person. Neither sex is so apt to fall in love and 
mate with a person of the other sex who is pitiless, 
as with one possessing pity and sympathy. Pity 
and sympathy, just like the love of parenthood, 
are bonds of the family. A community — a nation 
— is only a larger family. 

Charity and sympathy make men gregarious. 
A world without charity or sympathy would be 
most unattractive. Human companionship in its 
higher values would not exist. 

Nevertheless, when charity and sympathy build 

[ 285 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

and support large almshouses, until, as in Lon- 
don, one-third of all the property tax goes to the 
poor fund, then charity becomes an institution 
for breeding paupers and imbeciles. Such char- 
ity is the misuse of a virtue. Nine-tenths of all 
the paupers of one generation in England are 
children of the paupers of a preceding genera- 
tion. 

The following is what an eminent Englishman 
has to say of the condition of things in his 
country : 

^^We have a standing army of 1,200,000 paupers, 
and our permanent and occasional paupers num- 
ber together at least 3,000,000, Our paupers are 
maintained at a yearly cost of about £30,000,000 
to the community, and were it not for the Draconic 
administration of our poor-laws all our work- 
houses would be overcrowded by workers who 
would gladly exchange freedom and starvation 
wages for the confinement of the workhouse. No 
other nation has an army of paupers similar to 
that of Great Britain// — J, Ellis Barker, in 
'^ Great and Greater Britain,^' 

A Cat Story 

Once upon a time there was an excellent Queen 
who ruled over a beautiful and fruitful island. 
The island was not large ; it had an area of only 

[ 286 ] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

a few square miles, and the inhabitants num- 
bered but a thousand. They lived mainly by fish- 
ing and agriculture. 

The Queen loved both her people and her cats. 
As she would not allow a kitten killed, cats 
soon overran the palace. Some of these cats, 
dominated by the mousing instinct, took up their 
habitation in the fields and woods ; for mice, small 
birds, squirrels, and all manner of cat-game were 
plentiful on the island. 

The cats continued to multiply, until they be- 
came a great pest to the farmers, killing their 
chickens, ducklings, and song-birds. Then the 
good Queen divided the island between her people 
and her cats. She gave a tenth of the island to 
the cats. A fence was built between the cats and 
the people. 

The cats soon multiplied to the number of 
20,000, but there was not forage enough to feed 
them through the next winter ; consequently, half 
of them died during the cold weather. In the au- 
tumn of the following year there were again 
20,000 cats on the island, half of which were 
doomed to die by starvation during the winter; 
but the kind-hearted Queen taxed the people for 
food sufficient to feed the cats, and to save as 
many lives as possible. 

The succeeding summer being long and fruit- 
ful, the cats thrived well, and the next autumn 
there were 50,000 cats on the island, and as there 

[287] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

was but forage enough to winter 10,000 cats, 
40,000 must starve during the coming winter, un- 
less fed. Again the Queen taxed her people, and 
the cats were saved ; but, to the amazement of the 
Queen and her little people, the next autumn 
brought 100,000 hungry cats to be fed, and it had 
come to a point where either the people or the 
cats must starve. 

With grief, the Queen decided in favor of the 
people, for it was evident that, if the people were 
allowed to starve to save the cats, the cats also 
would starve without the people. That year, 
90,000 cats starved to death on the island. 

Thus, the good Queen's well-meant charity, in- 
tended to save 10,000 cats from starving to death, 
finally resulted in 90,000 cats starving to death. 
Actually, her attempt to lessen cat misery multi- 
plied that misery nine-fold. 

Now, what was true of those cats applies with 
exactly equal truth to the rearing of paupers and 
incompetents in times of peace. 

In all the countries of the civilized world to- 
day, there are institutions for rearing and edu- 
cating idiots. Sometimes, a section of an idiot's 
skull is cut out, and the skull trepanned in order 
to give his little brain room to expand. In 
this way, an idiot, incapable of feeding himself, 
may develop intelligence enough to vote, under 
the instruction of the ward-heeler, or he may even 

[ 288 ] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

develop into a public expounder of the beauties 
of defenselessness as a safeguard against war. 

The most common of all errors of conviction is 
the belief that knowledge of right-doing necessa- 
rily leads us to do right. But the truth is, that we 
are mainly guided by sentiment, even when it is 
diametrically opposed to our knowledge of right. 
No branch of our learning is more strongly forti- 
fied by facts of experience than that thoroughbred 
animals cannot be bred from scrub stock; that 
superior types of dogs cannot be bred from mon- 
grels ; that a fast trotting-horse is never sired by 
a Mexican burro or foaled by a heavy draught- 
mare. 

We know absolutely that identically the same 
laws govern the breeding both of human beings 
and of the lower animals, and that exactly accord- 
ing to the seed sown will the fruit be. If senti- 
ment leads us to sow tares among the wheat, we in- 
evitably injure the wheat. No breeder of the 
lower animals would, from sentimental considera- 
tions, employ inferior types for his purposes. 

With human growth, just as with the growth of 
vegetation in forest and field, there is only a cer- 
tain limited amount of room in the sun, and a cer- 
tain limited amount of nourishment and moisture 
in the soil. When charity aids an inferior type 
to secure a plot of earth and a plot of sky, it can 
do so only at the expense of some better type, 
which would otherwise have conquered the spaces 

[289] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

for itself, had not the inferior specimen had 
charity as an ally. 

Apropos of this philosophy, I quote the follow- 
ing from an article in Science by G. H. Parker, 
Professor of Zoology, of Harvard: — 

'^TJius asylums, retreats, hospitals, and so forth, 
have been established by private munificence or 
public grants. More or less under the protec- 
tion of these institutions has grown up a body of 
semi-dependents and defectives whose increase it 
is that excites the apprehension of the eugenists. 
That in the past such individuals have always 
formed a part of our race cannot be doubted, 
but that they ever showed a tendency to increase 
comparable with what seems to be occurring at 
present is highly improbable. The occasion of 
this increase is not, in my opinion, merely the 
exigencies of modern civilisation; it is at least in 
part due to the immense spread of humanitarian 
activities which have characterized the last cen- 
tury of our civilization. 



9 9 



If Andrew Carnegie were to give $100,000,000 
for the support of paupers in the United States 
and Great Britain, and another $100,000,000 for 
the saving and kindly treatment and support of 
imbeciles and incompetents, more continuous 
harm to the race would result, by securing the 
survival of the unfit, than would result from 

[290] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

a perpetual war between any two of the 
nations now engaged in the great European 
conflict. 

As all charities thrive like a green bay tree in 

times of peace, and are neglected in times of war, 

[ it will be seen that charity alone in times of peace 

j is more potent in securing the survival of the 

unfit than war could possibly be. 
I About here, the reader may conclude that I am 
I just as inconsistent in advocating armaments to 
I preserve peace, which, I hold, tends to foster de- 
! generacy and decay, as are the pacifists who, by 
I advocating disarmament, promote war, which, 
I they hold, is most potential in fostering the same 
I thing. 

j But this is not so striking an inconsistency as 
I may first appear, because, as I have shown, nation- 
wide military training, such as that practised in 
Switzerland, would make for regeneracy and effi- 
I ciency far more than all our charities, vices, and 
j profligacy make for degeneracy and decay. No 
I branch of education — ^not even all the prevalent 
i preachments on the subjects of hygiene, moral re- 
form, cleanliness, temperance, and right living — 
would be so influential for betterment as would the 
introduction of the Swiss system of military train- 
ing. 

In order to be a good soldier, a man must be 
^t, just as a college athlete must be fit; and mili- 
tary training, like the training of the college ath- 

[ 291 ] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

lete, compels him to observe the hygienic laws of 
right living. 

We grow upon what we do and what we eat. If 
we live on an unbalanced food, which supplies too 
much of one kind of nourishment and too little of 
another, we become unbalanced in body and mind. 
Similarly, if our occupation exercises some of our 
organs and faculties too much and others not 
enough, we become unbalanced in body and 
mind. 

The saying is trite that a sound mind requires 
a sound body. Likewise, a balanced mind must 
have a balanced body. 

The occupations of civil life, if not constantly 
accompanied by systematic, scientific mental and 
physical training throw us out of balance. The 
success of Muldoon's famous human repair-shop 
depends entirely upon building up by proper food 
and strenuous exercise long-neglected organs and 
faculties. 

The lower branches of a tree, which do not re- 
ceive the necessary exercise from the wind, and 
the necessary vitalizing stimulus of the sun, gradu- 
ally atrophy, and wither, die, and drop off; like- 
wise do unused and unstimulated organs and 
faculties of the body shrink toward atrophy and 
pale toward death. The only part of a tree that is 
alive is where the sap runs. All the rest of the 
tree is dead. Organs and faculties of the human 
body not adequately exercised to circulate through 

[ 292 ] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

them the required amount of sap, gradually begin 
to die. 

Lord Kitchener is the Muldoon of the new Eng- 
lish army. The raw recruits are trained for their 
coming fight in much the same manner that a 
pugilist is trained. They are made to take the 
long walk out and the sharp run home, carrying 
weights ; they wrestle and spar ; perform all man- 
ner of calisthenics and gymnastics ; are fed proper 
food, and are made properly to bathe. To the 
great majority of them, this man-making training 
is a revelation, but they find themselves so im- 
proved in health and so strengthened in body and 
mind that, when they return to civil life^ they 
will still utilize much of the useful knowledge of 
how to get fit and keep ^i ; and just as the hard 
work imposed upon the soldiers is made easier by 
their military training, so, when they return to 
civil life, they will find all their tasks much easier 
of accomplishment. 

The following is quoted from a letter just re- 
ceived by me from a prominent English clergy- 
man: 

^^The war is mahing the Britisher a new man, 
^and he is blissfully unconscious of the conversion 
in himself. Every class is feeling the uplift. He 
will be stronger in his religion, his politics, and 
his commerce. Half the men in Kitchener's Army 
hate fighting and taking life. They have enlisted 

[293] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

for conscience' sake. Naturally they mil mahe 
the finest soldiers/' 

Soldierly fitness includes not only those sterling 
qualities of higher manhood — cleanliness, tem- 
perance, efficiency, and moral stamina, raised from 
a semi-subconscious latency into conscious action 
by a military training — but also it includes that 
very important attribute — devotion. A military 
training develops a vague sense of patriotism 
whose height is a hurrah for country, to that 
height of devotion where one will gladly die for 
his country. 

In South America, there is a very potential 
little republic where military training produces 
just such beneficial results in a very high degree. 
Chili, perhaps, comes nearer to Germany in eco- 
nomic efficiency than any other country in the 
world. 

Nothing could be more absurd than the fear of 
the American people that a good-sized standing 
army of trained soldiers would menace their lib- 
erty. The very preparation, by education and 
training, necessary to make a good soldier, being 
the very best training in the world to make him a 
good citizen, would constitute one of the strong- 
est fortifications possible to defend us against our- 
selves. It would act as a gyroscopic stabilizer 
for our democratic institutions, and an equili- 
brator for our vacillating hot-air ship of state* 

[ 294 ] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

One of the very best books that I have yet seen 
upon the subject of peace and war is ** Peace In- 
surance,^' by Richard Stockton, Jr., published in 
January, 1915, by A. C. McClurg and Company. 
It is a book that cannot fail at this time to do a 
large amount of good, and I heartily recommend 
it to the reader. I quote the following from its 
pages : 

*'To avoid exaggeration we shall quote first 
Mr. Kirhpatrick, who attempts to show the 
horrors of war in his book, ^War — What Forf hy 
extracts from the New York Independent of 
March 14, 1907: 

'^ ^It is the common consensus of opinion among 
investigators that industrial casualties in this na- 
tion number more than 500,000 yearly. Dr. Josiah 
Strong estimates the number at 564,000. As there 
are 525,600 minutes in a year, it may readily be 
seen that every minute (day and night) our in- 
dustrial system sends to the graveyard or to the 
hospital a human being, the victim of some acci- 
dent inseparable from his toil. We cry out 
against the horrors of war. . . . But the ravages 
. . . of industrial ivarfare are far greater than 
those of armed conflict. The number of killed 
or mortally wounded (including deaths from acci- 
dents, suicides, and murders, but excluding deaths 
from disease) in the Philippine War from Febru- 
ary 4, 1899, to April 30, 1902, was 1,573. These 

[295] 



I 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

fatal casualties were spread over a period of three 
years and three months. But one coal mine alone i 
in one year furnishes a mortality more than 38 ' 
per cent, in excess of this, 

^' ^The Japanese War is commonly loohed uponf 
as the bloodiest of modern wars. According to | 
the official statement of the Japanese Government, j 
46,180 Japanese were hilled, and 10,970 died of 
wounds. Our industrial war shows a greater mor^\ 
tality year by year. 

^' ^But we are all of us more familiar with the^ 
Civil War, and we know what frightful devastation 
it caused in households North and South, It was, 
however, but a tame conflict compared with that 
which rages today, and which we call peace. The 
slaughter of its greatest battles are thrown in the 
shade by the slaughter which particular industrie 
inflict today. Ask any schoolboy to name threei^ 
of the bloodiest battles of that war, and he wil 
probably name Gettysburg, Chancellor sville, an 
Chickamauga. The loss on both sides was: 

Killed Wounded 

Gettysburg 5,662 27,203 

Chancellor sville 3,271 18,843 

Chickamauga 3,924 23,362 

Total 12,857 69,408 



(( ( 



'But our railroads, state and interstate, and 
our trolleys in one year equal this record in the 

[296] 









«5> 




Ov 




t>. 


-D 


• 


<D 


<3 




-S> 


(0 


t^ 


Q 


te/ 


E 
o 


•a 

5J 


O 


Cl 


(_ 


?-> 


(0 


♦* 


^ 


Q 

^ 


c 


"2 


CD 


.55 





i:^ 


O 


.55 


CO 


■^ 


a. 


::^ 


Hr 


i< 


O 


tv 


(0 







S 


-♦-» 


»»* 


CO 


^ 


3 


•k^ 


V) 

CD 




O 


^ 




•u 




tyj 




«a 




K 




%i» 




a 




^! 



Americans in Spanish War — 125 
XAmericans in Mexican War — 862 

\ English in Boer War — 2^990 

yiyerage Annual Number of 
English and French Killed in 
Crimean War— 10,541 



Average Annual Number Killed 
on Federal Side in American 
Civil War^2T,5U 



[Average Annual Number of 
Japanese Killed in 
Russo-Japanese War — 53,540 



GOOD AND EVIL 

number of killings and double it in the number of 
wounding s. ' 

^* Said Br. Josiah Strong in the North Ameri- 
can Review for November, 1906: 



H ( 



We might carry on a half-dozen Philippine 
wars for three-quarters of a century with no 
larger number of total casualties than take place 
yearly in our peaceful industries, 

'' ^Taking the lowest of our three estimates of 
industrial accidents, the total number of casualties 
suffered by our industrial army in one year is 
equal to the average annual casualties of our Civil 
War, plus those of the Philippine War, plus those 
of the Russian-Japanese War, 

'^ ^ Think of carrying on three wars at the same 
time, world without end.^ 

'^Said President Roosevelt in his Annual Mes- 
sage for 1907: 

'' 'Industry in the United States now exacts 
... a far heavier toll of death than all of our 
wars put together. . . . The number of deaths in 
battle in all the foreign wars put together for 
the last century and a quarter, aggregate con- 
siderably less than one yearns death record for our 
industries,' ... 

[297] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 



a 



Glancing over these comparisons between war 
and peace, we find that much of the horror of 
war dwindles away. Comparing those actually 
killed in industry and accident with those killed 
or dying from wounds in various ivars, we find 
that the annual peace rate is approximately two 
and a half times that of the average annual Japa- 
nese loss, three times that of the Union loss in the 
Civil War, five times the Russian loss in the 
Japanese War, six times the Confederate loss in 
the Civil War, twenty-eight times the English loss 
in the Anglo-Boer War, and ninety tiraes the 
American loss in the Spanish War. In other 
words, it would take the average annual deaths of 
the English and French in the Crimea, the Ameri- 
cans in the Mexican War, the North in the Civil 
War, the Americans in the Spanish War, the Eng- 
lish in the Boer War, and the Japanese in the 
Russian War to approach the annual United 
States peace rate. Assuming the burden of all 
these wars, at once, and without ceasing, would be 
no more a drain than our peace death rate! Need 
we say 7nore as to the cost in lives, as to the sor- 
roiving mother, sweetheart, and ivife? Think of 
these things. Where now is the bestiality and 
horror? Does it belong more to war where com- 
paratively few die for their country willingly and 
nobly, or to peace where the multitudes die for 
sordid gain — for dollars and cents? Would it not 
be meet for the pacifists, assuming that they have 

[298] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

the best interest of the country at heart, to turn 
first to the horrors of peace, and lastly to the hor- 
rors of war?*' 

It is well to observe that a very large percentage 
of the injuries and deaths in the United States in 
times of peace, noted by Dr. Strong, are due to 
preventable causes, and one of the best remedies is 
a military training. In Germany, the number of 
persons per capita of population killed and in- 
jured by accidents in time of peace is not half as 
great as it is in the United States. 

These losses are part of the high price that this 
country pays for inefficiency. They could be very 
largely remedied by military training, which 
quickens awareness and alertness. Many an acci- 
dent resulting in severe wounding or death is due 
to undeveloped and untrained powers of mind, and 
to lack of physical co-ordination. In the works 
of the National Cash Register Company, at Day- 
ton, Ohio, where all employees are given the 
equivalent of military training in care and effi- 
ciency, personal injury through accidents is al- 
most entirely eliminated. 

A man who has been taught to play football and 
to box and wrestle in his youth is not nearly so 
likely in after years to fall and injure himself, 
or to be hit by a trolley car, or automobile, as 
one who has not had that training. Similarly, a 
man who, in his youth, has had his mind developed 

[299] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

to quick alertness, and every muscle of his body 
brought under the domination of the will by mili- 
tary training, is far less likely to be injured by 
accident than one who has not had a military 
training. Consequently, many of the ills of peace 
may be cured by the practice of the very medicine 
that is the best remedy for war. 

William James, in an article entitled, **The 
Moral Equivalent of War,'' starts out with the 
remark, *^The war against war is going to be no 
holiday excursion or camping party." He adds 
that, ^' There is something highly paradoxical in 
the modern man's relation to war." 

He continues: 

^^Ash all our millions north and south whether 
they would vote now to have our war for the 
Union expunged from history^ and the record 
of a peaceful transition to the present time sub- 
stituted for that of its marches and battles, and, 
probably hardly a handful of eccentrics would say 
yes. 

^'Yet ash those same people whether they would 
be willing in cold blood to stand another civil war 
now to gain another similar possession, and not one 
man or woman would vote for the proposition/' 

Let us suppose that the same Southern states 
that then seceded were to secede again today, 
capture all the negroes there and all men and 

[300] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

women whose skins are tinted by negro blood, 
enslave them, and establish anew the auction 
block at the slave market: then let ns ask the 
people of the North Mr. James's second question. 

What defense has the average person against 
being convinced by snch sophistry, coming from 
so eminent a psychologist and philosopher as 
William James? The conclusion of the average 
person is: ^^A great man like him must know 
better than I, he having made a study of such 
things." This article was given wide circulation 
by the Association for International Conciliation. 
It was also published in McClure's Magazine, and 
again in the Popular Science Monthly. 

Others have said, and are saying, similar silly 
things about the war against war, but they are 
not men of such intellectual eminence as was 
William James. It is true that Dr. David Starr 
Jordan is a very prominent person, and says 
things even sillier than anything that William 
James said, but exactly there is the saving grace 
of his sayings. Some of his conclusions are so 
utterly irrational and absurd as to enable a very 
large number of persons to perceive their falsity, 
whereas the error is not so easily perceived in 
such statements as the foregoing quoted from Mr. 
James. 

Let us examine the proposition to make war 
on war. The only common-sense way to wage 
war on war is to war against the evils that pro- 

[301] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

Juce war. To wage war on war, which comes like 
the visitation of a physician, to cure ills, would 
be like waging war on the medical profession to 
cure a decimating pestilence. To arrest the hand 
of the surgeon in order to save bloodshed is to let 
the patient die of cancer. 

Our Civil War was merely a great surgical 
operation which removed a malignant cancer 
from the breast of Columbia. Mars, the old and 
experienced surgeon, made a good job of it. Co- 
lumbia's ailment was one that could not be cured 
by physic, poultice, incantations, or other quack 
nostrums, which, Mr. James suggested, might 
have been tried. The patient had to be operated 
on with the sword, so that the question as to the 
right or wrong of the Civil War, and as to 
whether it should have then been fought, and 
whether, if it had been delayed till now, it should 
now be fought, depends upon a choice of evils — 
depends entirely upon whether or not American 
slavery was a greater evil than the American Civil 
War. 

Two of my brothers were killed in the awful 
struggle to free the slaves and save the Union. 
It was worth the price to them, to me, and to the 
rest of my family; and I am of the opinion that 
every other family in the country who made a 
like sacrifice would agree with me that to free 
four millions of human beings from bondage was 
worth the price. Emancipation then not only 

[302] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

freed four millions, but it saved, between that 
time and now, more than twenty millions from 
the yoke and the lash. But, what is still more 
important, the emancipation of the slaves eman- 
cipated their masters also — emancipated all of us, 
North and South — and raised the proclamation 
of human equality by our country's fathers from 
a mockery and a shame to a reality. 

If there were men and women and children 
bought and sold in this country today, you and I^ 
reader, would mix up in the infamous business 
with gun and sword, and we would not wait long 
to do much voting about it, either. *' Great na- 
tional problems,*' said Bismarck, ** are solved 
not by speeches and resolutions of majorities, but 
by blood and iron. ' ' 

It is very evident that it would have been 
wrong in 1860 for some powerful external force, 
waging war against war, to have prevented the 
Civil War, and thereby have prevented the eman- 
cipation of the slaves. 

It is all very well at this time to prate about 
the possibility of a peaceful settlement of the 
differences between the North and South before 
the Civil War broke out. That is exactly what 
was tried. Even after the war broke out, Lin- 
coln, one of the greatest men that America ever 
produced, tried with all his might to do that very 
thing. War was the only way. 

A very large percentage of the wars of the 

[303] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

world have been waged for freedom — have been 
wars for justice, and against tyranny. To war 
against such wars would be to war for tyranny, 
and against freedom and justice. Actually, those 
who today are recruiting for the war against 
war are asking you to enlist in a campaign to 
shackle the hands of the oppressed in future 
years, and tie them down with ball and chain to 
prevent them from striking for liberty. They are 
to be denied the right of war for freedom, which 
was our right in the Eevolution. 

Every man exerts a positive influence either 
for good or for evil. If the advocates of dis- 
armament and non-resistance are exerting a good 
influence, then I am exerting a bad influence, and 
every advocate of armed defense is a worker of 
evil. You, reader, must judge between us. 

If it is wrong to insure with armaments against 
invasion of this country, which invasion would 
mean the violation of our homes, the rape of our 
wives and daughters and sisters and sweethearts ; 
if it is right to invite invasion by non-resistance, 
and wrong to oppose it with force; if, when an 
enemy injures us, it is the correct thing to let 
him add insult to the first otfense; then it is 
wrong to be a man, it is wrong to resent dishonor 
of the home, and all of us who have any manhood 
in us should be emasculated. 

If, when this country is invaded, some militant 
scoundrel, forcing his way into your home, should 

[304] 



GOOD AND EVIL 

lay the hand of violent lust on trembling wife or 
daughter, would you observe the pacifist policy of 
non-resistance, or would you kill him right there, 
even if it cost you your life ? I know your answer. 
The invading army would be lessened by one 
soldier, or there would be one less American. 



[ 305 J 



CONCLUSION 
WHAT SHALL THE END BE? 

IS it possible to prescribe a remedy for war? 
We know that law, unsupported by force, 
cannot be substituted for war. We know that 
war will obey no law other than that of necessity, 
and, consequently, that the settling of national 
differences at an international court of concilia- 
tory arbitration is not workable. We know that 
no nation will abide by the dictates of any such 
court when those dictates are opposed to its in- 
terests, unless that court has the power to enforce 
its decrees. 

We know, then, that an international court of 
arbitration can dispense only such justice as may 
be consistent with the interests and necessities of 
the nations possessing the power to dominate that 
court ; therefore, we know that the greatest meas- 
ure of justice and the greatest security for peace 
that may be expected are only what may be 
pledged by the union of a majority of the great 
nations in a pool of their national interests and 
necessities, to maintain such international order 
as shall be consistent with the terms of the pool. 

[ 306 ] 



WHAT SHALL THE END BEf 

All other nations outside of the pool will then 
be compelled to observe the law of the pooling 
nations, because the necessity of keeping peace 
with these dominant Powers will be greater than 
any other necessity. 

The justice that the weaker nations may expect 
will depend upon the degree in which their indi- 
vidual interests are the mutual concern of the 
larger interests. 

Armies and navies will then become veritable 
international police forces, and the necessity for 
large competitive armaments will be very greatly 
lessened. 

There will then be greater security for peace, 
although this striving world is not likely soon to 
be a safe and quiet nesting place for the dove of 
peace; because at any time, when the necessities 
of the pooling nations shall put too great a strain 
on the compact, then the pool will break and war 
ensue. The great aim of the peoples of the na- 
tions should not be for a Utopian peace based 
on merely sentimental grounds, but for a peace 
secured by so practicable an entente and pact be- 
tween the great Powers as shall, entirely aside 
from sentiment, work for the best welfare of the 
world. 

Russian, Teuton, Frenchman, Anglo-Saxon, 
when you shall have returned your blood-wet 
swords to their scabbards, then join hands over- 
seas with us Americans, who are kin to all the 

[307] 



DEFENSELESS AMERICA 

blood you have spilled, and let us take serious 
counsel of one another. 

But, Americans, though we may turn our face 
toward the morning that should come, such pos- 
turing cannot, any more than the cock's-crow, 
bring the morning; and until the great interna- 
tional compact be made, we shall be able to find 
safety only by adequate preparation to stand 
alone against the dread eventuality of war. 



[308] 



INDEX 



Abbott, Dr. Lyman, opinions of 

war, 52-53. 
Aerial bomb: few advantages, 
many disadvantages of, 
205-11. 
Aerial Warfare, Chapter VIII, 

203. 
Aeronautical Society, first an- 
nual banquet of, 16. 
Aeroplane, served to stimulate 
development of balloon, 
204; 
imperfections of first. 204; 
advantages over Zeppelin, 

214; 
less expensive than Zeppelin, 

214; 
French and German, ordered 

by U. S., 216-17; 
foreign countries possessing, 

218-19; 
indispensable for location of 
masked batteries. 219. 
Air-craft, chief use of, 213; 
the eyes of both army and 

navy, 219; 
a necessity in present-day 

warfare, 219-20; 
lack of, in America, 220-21. 
Alabama, the, 193. 
Alexander the Great, 90. 
Alva, Duke of, undertook to 
kill entire population of 
Netherlands, 239. 
American and British manu- 
facturing works, 76. 
Arbitration, international, 32, 
33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 
46, 306. 
Armaments, a safeguard against 
war, 6, 7, 8, 9. 



Armaments, a small burden in 
proportion to burden of 
luxuries, 226; 

benefits of, 228; 

added employment of labor in 
construction of, decreases 
individual taxation, 231. 
Armor-plate, introduction of, 
181; 

increase in thickness of, 184; 

inferior to the gun, 184; 

sufficiency of, dependent upon 
insufficiency of gun to 
which it is opposed, 186; 

improvements in, 189. 
Army, our, strength of, in num- 
bers, 100, 117, 118; 

lack of artillery and train- 
ing in, 102; 

ignorance of people as to 
proper equipment of, 103, 
115; 

lack of system in, 120; 

shortage of officers of, 122, 
123; 

personnel of our regular, 
126; 

total enlisted strength of, 
126, 127; 

mobile strength of, 127; 

injustice done officers of, 
146; 

a standing, one of the strong- 
est fortifications, 294. 
Attila, 79. 

Automatic magazine-rifle, its 
effectiveness over old meth- 
ods of warfare, 86, 87. 



Balaklava, the noble Six Hun- 
dred at, 102. 



[311] 



INDEX 



Balloon, developed with agro- 
plane, 204; 
modern, 205; 

dirigible, has one advantage 
over aeroplane, 210. 

Battle-cruiser, modem, ab- 
sence of any in U. S., 188; 
adopted by foreign countries, 
188. 

Beatty, Admiral, reports on 
North Sea fight, 195. 

Belgian women, abject condi- 
tion of, 244, 245. 

Bernhardi, extracts from his 
" How Germany Makes 
War," 89. 

Bessemer steel process intro- 
duced by Carnegie, 252. 

Bethlehem Steel Company, 
manufacture of guns and 
armor-plate, 9, 10, 76. 

Billings, Josh, on ignorance, 
23. 

Bismarck, 163. 

Blatchford, Robert, writer for 
The Daily Mail, quoted, 
164-67; 
mentioned, 167. 

Bliss, E. W., Torpedo Works, 
77. 

Bloch, M. de, author of "The 
Future of War," against 
possibility of war, 2; 
discussed, 93, 95. 

Bluecher, the, 187. 

Bombshells, 185; 

dropped from airship not 
very efTective, 209. 

"Britannia Rules the Waves," 
97. 

Buckner, Colonel E. G., vice- 
president of du Pont 
Powder Company, 257 

Buffington, General A. R., 
201. 

Ccesar, massacres by, 40; 
mentioned, 90, 162. 



Can Law Be Substituted for 

War? Chapter II, 22. 
Canal, Panama, 157, 173. 
Canning, George, attempts to 
join England in her open- 
door policy, 58. 
Cannon designed by Mr. Maxim 
to illustrate advantages of 
projectiles of great size, 
198; 
description of, 198, 199. 
Carlyle, quotations from, 49. 
Carnegie, Andrew, 68, 290; 
his ideas on military defense- 

lessness, 69; 
quotation from, 70-71; 
his views discussed, 71, 72, 

73, 74, 75, 78, 80; 
greatest American armorer, 
252. 
Chaffee, Lieut.-Gen. Adna R., 

quotation from, 68. 
Charity, evils of, 283, 284, 285, 
289 ; 
J. Ellis Barker on, 286: 
cat story illustrating evils of 

mistaken, 286-88; 
thrives in time of peace, for- 
gotten in times of war, 
291. 
Chittenden, Hiram M., his ar- 
raignment of war, 267-68. 
Christian Herald, The, 46. 
Colt Patent Firearms, 76. 
Congress, dependent upon will 
of people, 132-33; 
has power to dominate Army 

and Navy, 141 ; 
not qualified to pass judgment 

on Army and Nav>% 144; 
neglects to take necessary 
precautions against war, 
145; 
decides strength of Navy, 

164; 
and the General Board, 168. 
Conscription, values of, 136; 
enforced in Germany, 136. 

[312] 



200, 



\ 



INDEX 



Cradock and von Spee, naval 
battle between, 195. 

Cramb, Professor J. A., quota- 
tion from, 41. 

Cramp Sliipbuilding Works, 
77. 

Cromwell, 90, 163. 

Crozier, General William, 
statement of, 121-22. 

Cyrus the Great, 280. 

Dangerous Criminal Class, A? 
Chapter XI, 247. 

Dangerous Preachments, Chap- 
ter I, 1. 

De Bange obturator, an Amer- 
ican invention, 217. 

Dirigibles, foreign countries 
possessing, 218-19. 

Disarmament, repeatedly a 
failure, 12, 13. 

Diseases, germs of, sown by 
old pioneers, 278. 

Dreadnought, evolved by Eng- 
land, 158; 
superiority of, recognized by 
Germany, France, Japan, 
158; 
not appreciated by American 

Congress, 158; 
cost of, 225. 

Du Pont Company, The, 9, 10, 
77. 

Du Pont, Francis G., elimi- 
nated danger in manufac- 
ture of gun-cotton, 257, 
258. 



Economic Club of Boston, 18. 
Ego-Fanatic Good Intentions 

and Their Relation to 

National Defense, Chapter 

X, 235. 
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, his 

opinion about war, 271-72. 
Emery, Professor C, quotation 

from his " Some Economic 

Aspects of War," 226. 

[313] 



European War, predicted, 13, 
14, 15, 16. 

Falkland Islands, running 
fight off, 195. 

Fiske, Admiral, quoted, 170. 

Formative strife, man as a 
master, 27, 28, 29. 

Franklin, Benjamin, 135-36. 

Frederick the Great, 79, 90. 

French batteries outrange Ger- 
man, 103. 

French Government, maker of 
its own gunpowder, 262. 

Fuel-ships, 170, 171. 

" Future of War, The," by M. 
de Bloch, an argument 
against possibility of war, 
2. 



Gardner, Congressman, 128, 

161, 169, 216. 
Garrison, Secretary of War, in- 
terviewed, 100, 101. 
Gathmann gun, 208. 
General Board of Navy, organ- 
ized, 160; 
headed by General Dewey, 

160, 163, 164. 
and Congress, 168; 
report of, 169. 
Germany, government of, 135; 
militarism of, 139; 
progress in industrial arts 

and sciences, 139; 
superiority of, intellectually, 

140; 
fight of, with England at 

North Sea, 195; 
standing army of, 225. 
Goethals, Colonel, character of, 

253-54. 
Good and Evil of Peace and of 
War, The, Chapter XII, 
265. 
Grant, 90. 
Great Powers, 101, 108. 



INDEX 



Gun, increase in size and 
strength, 184; 

dependence of, upon armored 
protection, 187; 

high-power naval, most 
powerful dynamic instru- 
ment, 189, 
Gunpowder, smokeless, inven- 
tion and development of, 
181; 

four times as powerful as 
black powder, 182. 
Guns, field, necessity for, 103, 
104; 

helplessness of infantry 
without, 107; 

superiority over armor-plate, 
196. 

Haeckel, Ernst, 22. 

Hague Congresses, 35. 

Haldane, Lord, 128, 164. 

Hannibal, 90, 162. 

Hannibal's Balearic slingers, 
85. 

Hanno, 162. 

Herodotus, quoted, 281. 

Herr Krupp, 252. 

Holland submarine boats, 77. 

Holy Alliance, formed 1815, 56; 
purpose of, 56, 57; 
actions of, 57. 

Howitzers, German use of, 103; 
governmental need of, 201- 
2; Germans reported mak- 
ers of huge, 199. 

Huns and Vandals of present 
day, 31. 



working of smokeless pow- 
der, 259; 

army rifle, 259; 

smokeless rifle-powder, 259 ; 

value to government, 259-60. 

breech-loading guns, steam 
turbine, submarine torpedo 
boat, etc., 261. 
Isolation, fatal, of U. S., 120. 

James, William, attitude to- 
ward war, 300; 
discussed, 301. 
Japan, strength increasing, 

100. 
Japanese, a far-seeing people, 
62, 63; 
possessors of two powerful 
battle-cruisers, 188. 
Jefferson, Charles Edward, ad- 
vocates peace, 19, 20, 247. 
J6na, battleship, 263. 
Jordan Dr. David Starr, be- 
lieves in disarmament, 7; 
says war materials should be 
made by government, 7, 9; 
opposes war, 11; 
quotations from his "War 
and Waste," 1, 17, 18, 247; 
discussed, 93, 95, 240, 301 ; 
paid from Carnegie Peace 
Foimdation, 252. 
Journal of the Royal United 
Service Institution, draw- 
ings of Mr. Maxim pub- 
lished in, 199. 



Indiana, the, 156. 

Indulgence, statistics of U. S., 

225-26, 
International Tribunal, 39. 
Inventions : 

gun-cotton, 257; 
multi-perforated grain, 257, 

258; 
process for successful re- 

[314] 



Kaiser Wilhelm II, quoted. 141. 
Kane, Admiral, quoted, 116. 
Kearsarge, the, 193. 
Kitchener, Lord, Muldoon of 

new English army, 293. 
Knight, Admiral Austin M., 

quoted, 150-54, 155, 171, 

173-74. 



Lake Submarine Torpedo Boat 
Works, 77. 



INDEX 



La Libei'td, battleship, 263. 

Language of the Big Guns, 
Chapter VII, 181. 

Law, substitution of, for War, 
31-32; 
inadequacy of, 34; 
must be backed by force, 36. 

Lea, General Homer, quota- 
tions from, 33, 63, 64, 68, 
228-29. 

Lee, 90. 

Lincoln, Abraham, 163. 

Lowell, James Russell, quota- 
tion from his poem, 44, 45. 

Machinery, modern, labor-sav- 
ing, 81, 82, 83; 
a strong factor in a nation's 
preparedness for war, 87; 
expense of. 87. 96; 
a means of shortening length 

of war, 88; 
assists the soldier in battle, 

90; 
saves human life, 92. 
Mahan, Admiral, 46; 

quoted, 67. 
Manufactories of munitions of 

war, unprotected, 77, 78. 
Marat, a pacific moralist, 238. 
Marius, military genius of, 

162. 
Marlborough, 90. 
Marlin Fireerms Works, 76. 
"Marseillaise," 97. 
Martel, Charles, 90, 162. 
Massachusetts, the, 156. 
Maxim, Hudson, his proposi- 
tion of throwing large 
charges of explosives from 
big guns criticised, 200; 
inventor of multi -perforated 
grain, 257, 258. 
Maximite, first trial of, 201 ; 
first explosive successfully 
fired through armor-plate, 
201. 
Medici, Catherine de', 238. 



Mendeleeflf, told how to colloid 

gun-cotton, 257. 
Merrimac, the, 181, 184, 185, 

192, 193. 
Meyer, G. von L., ex-Secretary 
of Navy, 135, 143, 175; 
quoted, 176-80. 
Militia, lack of batteries in, 119; 
lack of officers in, 120; 
actual strength of, 127. 
Modern Methods and Machin- 
ery of War, Chapter IV, 68. 
Monitor, Ericsson's, 158, 181, 
192, 193; 
victory over Merrimac, 184, 

185; 
inferior to modern battle- 
ships, 193; 
developed into super-dread- 
nought by Europeans, 217; 
builders of, inspired by spirit 

of patriotism, 255; 
tardy acceptance of, by gov- 
ernment, 256. 
Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed, 
56; 
actual formulator of, John 

Quincy Adams, 58; 
inconsistencies of, 60, 62; 
General Lea on, 63-4; 
England's attitude toward, 

65; 
an Anglo-American compact, 
66. 
Monroe, President, declaration 

of, 58-9. 
Montesquieu, quoted, 281. 
Mukden, battle of, 249. 
Miiller, Max, 41. 
Multi-perforated grain, invented 

by Mr. Maxim. 198. 
Murray Hill Hotel, explosion 
in front of, 209-10. 

Napoleon, 40, 45, 57, 79, 89, 
118, 162, 163; 
his " Que messieurs les assas- 
sins commencent," 54. 



[315] 



INDEX 



Navy, U. S., Admiral Knight 
on the, 150-54; 
necessity for superiority in, 

155; 
gradually slipping back, 158; 
inadequate, 99, 100; 
constituents for a proper, 

170, 171. 
waste of money appropriated 
for, 175. 
Needs of Our Army, The, Chap- 
ter V, 113. 
Needs of Our Navy, The, Chap- 
ter VI, 141. 
New York Arsenal, 77. 
New York Times, quoted, 144- 
45. 

O'Neil, Admiral Charles, 200. 

Oregon, the, 156. 

Our Armaments Not a Burden, 
Chapter IX, 222. 

Our Inconsistent Monroe Doc- 
trine, Chapter III, 56. 

Parker, Professor G. H., quoted, 

290. 
Patent- OflSce, inventions re- 
ceived by, increasing, 260. 
Peace, conference. 18; 

praters, advocates, and proph- 
ets of, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 108, 
247; 
falseness of position of paci- 
fiers toward, 109, 110, 235, 
236, 237, 241, 242, 248, 
249, 250, 253, 256, 257, 266; 
Bible and, 49, 50; 
sophists, 109, 262, 267, 274, 

275; 
tends more to degeneracy and 
national decay than war, 
280. 
Peter the Great, architect of 

Russia, 163. 
Picatinny Arsenal, 76. 
Plato, on war. 265. 
Pratt and Whitney Works, 76. 



Projectiles, power and weight 
of, 183; 

improvements in, 188-89; 

distance most efficient pro- 
tection from, 192; 

larger ones lose less velocity 
than smaller, 195-96. 

Queen Elizabeth, the, latest and 
most powerful type of 
dreadnought, 175. 

Remington Small Arms Works, 
76. 

Report of the Chief of Ord- 
nance, 1914, 125. 

Report of the Chief of StaflF, 
128. 

Roberts, Lord, 128, 129. 

Robespierre, a noted pacifist, 
238. 

Roosevelt, Theodore, quotations 
from, 3, 5, 43; 
caliber of, 143. 

Royal United Service Institu- 
tion of Great Britain, 
197. 

Ruskin, John, on war, 269-71. 

Russia, Czar of, 96. 

Russian " Monroe Doctrine," 
57. 

Russo-Japanese War, predicted, 
13. 

Salisbury, Lord, quoted, 235. 

Santiago, battle of, 195. 

Savage Arms Works, 76. 

Scientific American, quoted, 
121; 124-25; 
mentioned, 159. 

Scriptures, quotations from, 49, 
50, 51, 52. 

Secretary of Army and Secre- 
tary of Navy, 141, 142; 
should not be treated politi- 
cally, 142. 

Secretary of War, 141. 

Sheridan, 90. 



[316] 



INDEX 



Sherman, his famous declara- 
tion about war, 244. 

Smith and Wesson Revolver 
Works, 76. 

Smokeless cannon-powder, in- 
vented by Mr. Maxim, 197- 
98. 

Smokeless multi-perforated 
powder, adopted by U. S. 
Government, 218. 

Socialists take part in war, 97. 

South American republics and 
the United States, 60, 61. 

Sparta, ancient, power of gov- 
ernment in, 136. 

Speed, of supreme importance 
in naval engagements, 196- 
97. 

Spencer, Herbert, philosopher, 
19, 23, 30, 229, 245. 

Spottsylvania Court House, 
battle of, 146. 

Stead, William T., recom- 
mends that British Par- 
liament build two battle- 
ships to every one built by 
Germany, 18. 

Steel Trust, 10. 

Stockton, Mr. Richard, Jr., 
quoted, 139, 227; 
his book on *' Peace Insur- 
ance," quotations from, 
295-99. 

Strong, Dr., President of Amer- 
ican Institute of Social 
Service, 54, 299. 

Sullivan, John L., fighter, 19, 
172. 

Sumner, William Graham, 
quotation from, 56. 

Swiss system of military train- 
ing, 134, 137, 138, 291. 

Talmage, Rev. T. de Witt, 47. 
Tennyson, 31. 
Torquemada, 238. 
Tupper, Sir Charles, 65. 
Twain^ Mark, 24. 

[ 



Union Metallic Cartridge 
Works, 76. 

United States Army, powder 
works of, 76. 

United States Arsenal, 76. 

United States Naval Torpedo 
Station, 77. 

United States Steel Corpora- 
tion, 9. 

United States, a world-power, 
149, 157. 

Upton, General Emory, pro- 
phetic speech of, 116. 

Vesuvius, the, 209. 

Victory, naval, dependent upon 
weight of broadsides, 104; 
land, upon weight of gun- 
fire, 104. 

Vieille, producer of gun-cotton, 
257. 

"Wacht am Rhein," 97. 

War, ex-President Taft's views 

on, 16; 
China's, 16; 

Italian, with Tripoli, 16; 
Balkan, 16; 
Mexican, 17; 

European, 17, 103, 232, 233; 
Dr. Jordan's views on, 17-18; 
when justifiable, 42, 43, 45; 
and Christianitv. 46-55; 
Civil, 85, 86, 87^ 90, 302, 305; 
Boer, 103; 
Spanish, 158, 221; 
as an art, 172; 
of 1812, 221; 
advantages of, 270, 271, 272, 

273; 
survival of fittest in, 274; 
mixer of races, 274; 
remedy for? 306-308. 
War materials, manufacture 

of, by government and 

private individuals, 9, 10, 

251, 252; 

317 1 



INDEX 



War materials, manufacturers 
of, actuated by honorable 
principles, 255. 
Washington, George, opinion of 

war, 84, 85. 
Winchester Repeating Arms 

and Cartridge Works, 76. 
Woman's Peace Party, resolu- 
tions of, 239-40; 
mistaken ideas of, 241, 

242; 
bravery of, if war should 

come, 242, 243, 244; 
inconsistency of, 244. 
Wood, General Leonard, 118, 134. 
letter from, 113-15; 
quotation from, 129, 130, 131, 
132. 
Wright Brothers, encouraged 
abroad, 216; 



Wright Brothers, mentioned, 

219. 
Wyndeer, Sir William, 236. 

Zalinski pneumatic gun, 200. 
Zeppelin, subject of guess- 
work, 204; 

speed of, 205; 

little accuracy in bomb-drop- 
ping from, 211; 

an enormous target, 211; 

more expensive than aero- 
plane, 213; 

use as troop-ship yet to be 
proven, 214; 

advantages over aeroplane, 
215; 

important use in detection 
of submarines, 215; 

not one in U. S., 218. 



[318] 



PRAISE FROM PATRIOTS 



Extracts From a Few of Hundreds of Letters Praising 
HUDSON MAXIM'S DEFENSELESS AMERICA 



Theodore Roosevelt: 

" 'Defenseless America* is a capital book. I hope it 
will have the widest possible circulation throughout 
our country. The prime duty .for this nation is to 
prepare itself so that it can protect itself; and this is 
the duty that you are preaching in your admirable 
volume." 

Oscar S. Straus: 

" 'Defenseless America*, coming from an expert, will 
awaken interest in the most practical method of se- 
curing peace by safeguarding our national existence. 
I am in fullest accord with your Conclusion — an in- 
ternational compact with adequate international force 
to maintain it, and give adequate guarantee to enforce 
its decrees." 

S. S. McClure: 

"A most convincing book on an extraordinarily im- 
portant subject, done in a manner not only convincing 
but irrefutable." 

Rear- Admiral Charles D. Sigsbee: 

"I should not have said that the subject could be 
treated in a way to make it fascinating to the popular 
reader, yet I now think that is precisely what you 
have done. May the book bear good fruit!" 

Garrett P. Serviss: 

" 'Defenseless America' ought to go into the hands 
of ten million American citizens before another month 
passes. You have done a magnificent thing for your 
country! In God's name, may she turn from the silly 
twaddle of the pacifist vdseacres, and save herself, 
even on the crumbling verge!" 

[319] 



PRAISE FROM PATRIOTS 

George von Lengerke Meyer: 

"It will go a great ways toward aiding the people of 
this country to realize the necessity of a proper national 
defense and a preparedness against war." 

Mrs. John A. Logan: 

"I wish that every official in the land could read it." 

Dr. Orison Swett Marden: 

"A colossal, monumental treatment of the subject." 

Franklin D. Roosevelt: 

"You have brought the whole question of National 
Defense to a basis which can be readily understood by 
the average layman." 

Lieut. Baron Hrolf von Dewitz: 

"In ^Defenseless America* you explode a crater oi 
information on the subject such as has never been 
detonated before." 

Col. Beverley W. Dunn: 

"I wish to congratulate you on the conspicuous and 
valuable service that you have rendered the people of 
the United States in writing this book." 

Dr. E. C. Beck: 

"I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart 
for this masterpiece of revelation on your part, this 
opus which I look upon in the nature of an historical 
event. May the Lord use your book to pound a little 
sense into our fellow citizens." 

Rev. J. F. Stillemans: 

"I am only one of thousands who would welcome an 
edition as cheap as possible of 'Defenseless America* 
so that we could distribute it freely." 

Cleveland Moffett: 

" 'Defenseless America* is great stuff and ought to 
be read by every loyal American.*' 

W. Sidney Jopson: 

"The direct results of reading 'Defenseless America* 
were that I went to Plattsburg and applied for ad- 
mission in our National Guard.** 

[ 320 ] 



PKAISE FROM EDITORS 



No Serious Book Has Ever Been More Highly Praised by 
the Leading Newspapers of America. 



Philadelphia Public Ledger: 

"A book by an expert in modem armament who 
writes with graphic power what he knows better than 
anyone in this country — a solemn warning.'* 

New York American: 

"No book issued on the subject marshals with equal 
skill so great an array of facts as Mr. Maxim's volume. 
In the present state of national thought upon our mili- 
tary and naval needs this book is most valuable." 

Washington Star: 

"In origin and treatment this is a surpassing study 
whose sheer information, apart from its personal con- 
clusions, is worth the serious attention, not only of the 
legislator, but of the plain man behind the lawmaker/' 

Detroit Free Press : 

"Hudson Maxim makes a call to arms against war. 
Here is an argument for proper armament from a 
man who not only foretold the Japanese war and 
named the victor, but also prophesied the present con- 
flict and by knowledge and study of world's conditions 
knows what he is talking about and makes his warn- 
ing timely." 

Los Angeles Times: 

"A powerful book on an imminent and national 
problem that every thinking citizen should read with 
care." 

Boston Transcript: 

"Shows how it is safer for a country like the United 
States with so large a territory to defend, to prepare, 
so that no foreign nation will be anxious to try a strug- 
gle with us. The peace of the United States will then 
rest on a firm foundation.'* 

[321] 



PRAISE FROM EDITORS 

Baltimore Sun: 

"The book is brilliantly written, with the severity of 
one who intensely desires to drive a truth home and 
with the assurance of one who feels his statistics un- 
assailable and his arguments unanswerable. He is sup- 
ported by many witnesses whose knov/iedge must be 
respected. There is no smallness in the writer's at- 
titude. He appears to feel intensely his mission as 
prophet and patriot." 

Cleveland Plain Dealer: 

"Here is a man, frankly interested in war, who seems 
utterly honest in his beliefs. The book contains an 
expert elucidation of the weaknesses of the American 
army and navy. It has practical suggestions for im- 
provement. It is, in fact, a complete text book for the 
student of American preparedness or unpreparedness, 
written, of course, in a sincerely ex parte manner." 

Brooklyn Citizen: 

"The book should be read and studied carefully by 
every lover of his country." 

Lewiston Journal: 

" 'Defenseless America* is a ringing and insistent 
call, calculated to startle the average American out of 
his peaceful and complacent sense of security." 

New York Press: 

"The book is interesting — as interesting as a well- 
written and absorbing novel, only it deals with vital 
facts that have a bearing on the lives and fortunes of 
every one in this country." 

The Outlook: 

"We wish that we could think that those who are 
opposed to any preparation against war by this country 
would read and consider this book of Mr. Hudson 
Maxim." 

Life, N. Y.: 

"One of the early lumber-camp tales ended with a 
stirring scene in which a big, sandy-haired hero, caught 
in the path of a bursting log jam, hurls his cap de- 
fiantly into the advancing wall of destruction, just 
before it whelms him. Such a gesture, futile yet mag- 
nificent, is suggested by Hudson Maxim's fiery appeal 
to the sleeping intelligence and lulled self-interest of 

[322] 



PRAISE FROM EDITORS 

his countrymen, 'Defenseless America/ The book con- 
tains a remorseless marshaling of stern facts, fused 
into prophecy by a sort of incandescent logic. It is the 
first bold proclaiming of the bitter 'civilization' truths 
revealed by the vast disillusionment of the war. And 
these are here flung, as the author feels, into the face 
of approaching national disaster." 

The Scienthic American: 

"The scope of 'Defenseless America* is so all-embrac- 
ing, that the author has given a veritable mine of in- 
formation upon the subject of war and war material. 
Mr. Maxim is well qualified by his long and successful 
association, as a practical and successful inventor, with 
the production of the implements of war, to write upon 
the technical side of the question ; and this he does with 
a characteristic force and lucidity which will render 
the subject perfectly understandable and full of fasci- 
nating interest for the average layman." 

Review of Reviews: 

"A graphic and effective presentation of facts reveal- 
ing the defenseless condition of this country and indi- 
cating what must be done to avert national hu- 
miliation." 



"THIS POWERFUL BOOK HAS JARRED 
AMERICAN COMPLACENCY AS NO 
OTHER BOOK HAS EVER 
DONE^ 



From The New York American 



One of the most remarkable men of our time has written 
a book — and the book is probably the most startling docu- 
ment ever placed before the American people. Its author is 
Hudson Maxim, world-famous inventor, writer on many top- 
ics of public interest, member of the Naval Advisory Board 
— and an American patriot. 

His book, called "Defenseless America," has fallen among 
the complacent, the self-satisfied, the careless and the indif- 
ferent like a seventeen-inch shell. 

[323] 



PRAISE FROM EDITORS 

It is a pitiless book — pitiless in its facts, pitiless in its 
logic, pitiless in its conclusions. 

Mr. Maxim knows what he is writing about; he is one of 
the greatest authorities on military affairs in the world. 
His book has the cold steel precision of truth. 

He shows that all wars have economic causes, no matter 
how they are painted over with sentiment. And he demon- 
strates that one of the most urgent economic incentives to 
war that has ever existed will be the relative condition of 
Europe and the United States at the close of the Great War. 

Imagine the victors of this gigantic conflict — Allies or 
Teutons — impoverished in money and resources, with the 
most colossal public debt in the world's history hanging over 
them, but possessing an enormous army of trained veterans 
and a world-beating navy. 

Then, on this side of the Atlantic, a nation that thinks it 
"can whip all creation," and^acts on that principle — a hun- 
dred million over-fed, money-making people, nine-tenths of 
whom could not load a modern infantry rifle if they should 
ever happen to see one; a country of countless dollars pro- 
tected by obsolete battleships and submarines that can neith- 
er float nor sink; a nation rich but 'undefended, confident but 
weak, dictatorial in manner but powerless in action. 

America sits on an open powder barrel. "Will the Victors 
of the Great War apply the match? 

Get this stirring and tremendous book, and read what 
will happen — in Mr. Maxim's own words. He will tell you 
where the match will be applied, what points in controversy 
will bring on the collision — and then what will take place 
with startling swiftness. 

And— 

He tells what may be done, even at this late day, for 
effective defense. 



As Mr. Maxim has cut out all royalty, the publishers are 
thereby enabled to furnish a special edition of the book, of 
which this volume is a sample, at only fifty cents >a copy. 

The book may be obtained of or ordered through any book- 
store, or the publishers, Hearst's International Library Com- 
pany, 119 West 40th Street, New York, will send it postage 
paid to any address for sixty cents, or ten copies in a single 
package for five dollars — fifty cents a copy. The library 
edition, superior paper and binding, may still be had at two 
dollars a copy. 



[ 324 ] 



R D 184 















(k ir « 











** .>V/K\ ^^ .* /Jj^% X^J' Ax..... 



4. -L 













p 
« 







'oK 






• «« 













^o. 



* V^ • • • * **^N 




p^. 



« •». 



^,,^^ A%i£% u.y y^^\ V,.*-*' .k^f • ^* 





















• #•« 

















• sO 






'^^i^ 



'oy 











* **'\ 





% 411*' ' 



DOBBS BROS. !NC VSE^^L* O^ -V oyrv'^^ffiV» '''^m « ^^^ 



ST. AUGUSTINE ♦T' 



iP^^. 



• • • 



^^^°"\c^*^ - 






• 1 1 



• •• 



